In retrospect, which were realigning elections?

[SingingAnalyst]

Clearly 1932 was a realigning election, and the electoral map does not look like it did in 1960. Which if any of the elections listed was realigning? Or is realignment more of a gradual process?

[Orser67]

I'd actually say none. If I was going to point to a single election, I might say 1994. 1996 was sort of the last gasp of Democratic presidential strength in the South, but I think the Republican Revolution was what established our current ideologically sorted parties (though this continued until at least 2014, with the defeat of the last Southern Democratic Senators), and 1996 is at least partly attributable to a popular incumbent from the region.

[Virginiá]

Realignments generally occur over time and not in a single election. In a way, you could say things are always in flux and one party is rising to power as another dwindles. Right now we are undoubtedly in the process of a Democratic realignment from the old Reagan order. There is an argument to be had (imo) of whether it was 1992 or 2008, but the blue wall states all flipped by 1992 and 2008 marked the beginning of a 2nd round of states emerging as Democratic states as minority and Millennial voting strength grows.

On the other hand, major events can spark a change in thinking and a movement of voters to a party, depending on the circumstances. 1932 is a fine example. This kind of change is very rare and post-FDR I'm not aware of any defining event like it. The Republican realignment of the 60s was not a snap moment - it happened gradually, probably starting in 1948 when the Democrats first began moving towards civil rights. 1964 was a flash point and after that we all know those presidential elections turned out. Republicans simply had more support for a long time, just like Democrats are now beginning to outmatch them.

Also, it's worth noting that there is a heavy generational component to realignments (imo). For instance, right now Millennials are heavily Democratic, and in some emerging battlegrounds/Democratic states, they are the ones powering Democratic success. North Carolina and Florida are decent examples, as the heavily Democratic Millennial/younger genx generation are turning the states blue (in addition to transplants and small coalition shifts), slowly but surely. Eventually, if Republicans fail to make inroads with Millennials and/or the next generation, these states will likely become blue states.

I think it's a little bit easier to look at realignments in terms of time periods and not single elections, because the elections themselves are more like a result of the realignment rather than the trigger.

[Del Tachi]

1968 and 2008 of this list.

1800, 1840, 1860, 1896 and 1932 before that. 

[Redban]

I don't see 2008 as a realigning election at all. All of the divisions in that election were already present in 1996, 2000, and 2004 --- urban vs. rural, whites vs. nonwhites, Coastal Areas vs. Heartland. Obama used the groups that Kerry and Gore did; the sole exception is that he actually won.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

1896   GOP party became the anti govt business party as opposition to Income Tax grew with McKinley

1932   Democratic party became the big govt party as Dems moved towards equality

2008   Latino coalition along the Rocky Mnt states: CO, NV and VA become hardcore Democratic states as WVA moves toward the GOP column

[Arbitrage1980]

1992: Clinton moved the Democrats to the center on a number of key issues such as fiscal responsibility, economic growth, welfare, and crime.  Since then the GOP has been shut out of the Northeast (with exception of Bush winning New Hampshire in 2000), west coast, and the large midwestern states of Michigan and Illinois.  Clinton made the Democrats acceptable with white suburban voters while holding onto the traditional base.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

2000 is one on the presidential level, as it was the election where AR/LA/TN/KY/WV/GA/AZ/TX became Safe R on the presidential level, even with a southern democrat on the ticket (I know TX never voted for Bill Clinton but it came close to doing so both times, which is pretty remarkable considering it was H.W. Bush's home state and a pretty good fit for Dole on paper) All of those states except GA/AZ aren't coming back anytime soon (I'll believe #BattlegroundTX when I see it on election day).

[OSR stands with Israel]

1968 1992

[Phony Moderate]

Realignments generally occur over time and not in a single election.

This. The Southern abandonment of the Democrats in presidential elections can arguably be traced back to Al Smith in 1928, when several Southern states went for Hoover and the Democratic vote in AL and GA was only in the 50s (it had been in the 60s/70s in the bigger nationwide losses of 1920 and 1924). Despite the trends between 1960 and 1972 it didn't become absolutely clear until 2000 that the South was a Republican electoral territory.

Though had it not been for a certain event in late 1929 I suspect that process may have occurred more quickly.

[pbrower2a]

1992, in the sense of the election showing that a realignment had been made. Overlay 1976 with 1992, and you will see that Clinton won a raft of states that Carter had lost in 1976, states that Democrats win in all subsequent winning elections (WA, OR, CA, NV, NM, IA, IL, MI, NJ, CT, VT, NH, ME). Note also that Carter is the last Democratic nominee for President to win TX. MS, AL, and SC unless something strange happens this year. Donald Trump is strange enough to make that happen.   

Realignments happen under the cover of landslides as the coalitions that allowed landslide elections rift. 1992 shows evidence that the old "Rockefeller Republicans" had begun to break from the GOP. Maybe they just could not get along with the constituencies that the Southern Strategy brought in. 

[Joe McCarthy Was Right]

An interesting theory I read (from Sean Trende) was that the Obama coalition was just a narrower but deeper version of the Clinton coalition (losing Appalachian whites, but winning more of the black and youth vote and turnout), thereby making 1992 the big realignment election. Also in that theory, the New Deal coalition only lasted in presidential elections until 1944, with Truman's coalition more closely resembling Woodrow Wilson's than Roosevelt's. Nixon's base was just an extension of the Eisenhower coalition that lasted until 1988.

1992 doesn't really resemble 1976. I think at least 21 states voted differently. 1952 resembled 1980 at least at the county level. Therefore, 1952 would be the other major realigning election.

[Roronoa D. Law]

1968 - The switch between the south and the north voting patterns still relevant to this day

1992 - First sign of Democrats appealing to suburbanites and the new minorities of Hispanics and Asians. Westchester NY, Ventura CA, Montgomery PA, Broward FL, and St Louis County MO all flipped. These where major suburban counties that were the birthplace of Republican Conservatism and every major urban and suburban county has followed suit after this election. 

[Agonized-Statism]

There's a lot of different ways to periodize, but I consider the last realignment to be 1980.

[Left Wing]

2000 was a huge realignment which put the final nail in the new deal coalition.

[Alcibiades]

Surprised to see 2000 as the least popular option. For me it is the most realigning election in the poll, as electoral maps in the 4 elections since have looked remarkably similar. It really cemented our present electoral geography.

[Nightcore Nationalist]

I think 1992 was the start of the most recent realignment that ended the Nixon/Reagan "permanent Republican majority" and 2000 finished/solidified it.

[𝕭𝖆𝖕𝖙𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖆 𝕸𝖎𝖓𝖔𝖑𝖆]

All elections are realigning elections.

[Person Man]

All elections are realigning elections.

I definitely think the only reason why elections 2000 on look about the same is that the elections have been close-ish. I think the 1992 and 1996 looked pretty similar, too.

You could get the same pattern on states into the 80s if you handicap those elections, but I don't think that would be honest as a lot of those voters just weren't ready to vote for Carter, Mondale, or Dukakis.

[Non Swing Voter]

Surprised so few people chose 2000.  That was the election that really pushes the GOP rapidly towards its current appalling path culminating in Trump.  In many ways, GWB and his cronies were far worse than Trump because they set this in motion.

[Agonized-Statism]

All elections are realigning elections.

"If everyone is super, no one will be"

-Syndrome, The Incredibles

[𝕭𝖆𝖕𝖙𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖆 𝕸𝖎𝖓𝖔𝖑𝖆]

All elections are realigning elections.

"If everyone is super, no one will be"

-Syndrome, The Incredibles

Indeed you can also say that no election is a realigning election.

[dw93]

2000 to me was more of an "end result" of a gradual realignment that took place between 1964 and 1996, with 1964, 1980, 1992, and 1994 being the main realigning years, and 1996 being the last hurrah for the Democrats in the Appalachian South. 1968 was just a continuation of a trend that started in 1964 , which was the south breaking hard from the Democrats nationally. 1992 was sort of a counter realignment, if you will, to the realignments of 1964 and 1980 as 1992 was when Rockefeller Republicans and Northern Suburbanites went for the Democrats, not fitting into a more Christian Dominated, culturally southern/conservative Republican party. 1994 was the year where the Republicans finally realigned the south at the congressional level,at least the deep south anyway as states like AR, WV, and KY were willing to vote for the Democrats at the state and local level even into the early 2010s.

I'd also argue that 2008 and even 2016 were also a continuation of trends that started in the 2 to 5 decades ago (affluent suburbanites in the Sun Belt going Dem, Appalachia going solidly R at the state and local level).

[Roronoa D. Law]

Surprised so few people chose 2000.  That was the election that really pushes the GOP rapidly towards its current appalling path culminating in Trump.  In many ways, GWB and his cronies were far worse than Trump because they set this in motion.

If you mean when did the GOP went looney then that started with 1994 with Gingrich and the rise of Fox news.

There was a clear indication that Republicans where gaining ground in the south as early as 1968. Carter and Clinton were only able to stop bleeding because they were from the South. We didn't see Democrats starting winning the NE and West on the backs of suburban women and minorities till 1992.

[Ye We Can]

1800
1828
1860
1896
1932
1980