In retrospect, which were realigning elections? (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 28, 2024, 05:15:13 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Presidential Election Trends (Moderator: 100% pro-life no matter what)
  In retrospect, which were realigning elections? (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Poll
Question: In retrospect, which were realigning elections?
#1
1968
 
#2
1980
 
#3
1992
 
#4
2000
 
#5
2008
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 137

Calculate results by number of options selected
Author Topic: In retrospect, which were realigning elections?  (Read 6137 times)
Hope For A New Era
EastOfEden
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,718


« on: November 27, 2020, 04:24:16 AM »

After seeing how 2020 has played out, here's the argument I'll make.

1932 should not be the election we use to define a realigning election. 1932 is an anomaly.

Why is it an anomaly?

Because Carter and Trump, the two most recent "collapse" presidents, were only really hit especially hard by crises during year 4.

Hoover was hit during year 1. The country then had to struggle through 3 years of his poor management of the Great Depression, with no outlet in the form of an election, allowing the Democratic momentum to keep building. The result was extreme Democratic dominance for 20 years and lingering strength for a further 30.

Most realignments are not so clear-cut and decisive.

What we know as the Reagan Era has very fuzzy edges. Steps. 1968, then the big step in 1980, then 1994, then 2000. Bush's presidency was when the coalition of fiscal conservatives + the religious right was at its most dominant in American politics, culture, and society.

The first step into the new era was 2008. 2020, apparently, is step two. Step three is...2034?
Logged
Hope For A New Era
EastOfEden
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,718


« Reply #1 on: November 27, 2020, 08:58:15 PM »

After seeing how 2020 has played out, here's the argument I'll make.

1932 should not be the election we use to define a realigning election. 1932 is an anomaly.

Why is it an anomaly?

Because Carter and Trump, the two most recent "collapse" presidents, were only really hit especially hard by crises during year 4.

Hoover was hit during year 1. The country then had to struggle through 3 years of his poor management of the Great Depression, with no outlet in the form of an election, allowing the Democratic momentum to keep building. The result was extreme Democratic dominance for 20 years and lingering strength for a further 30.

Most realignments are not so clear-cut and decisive.

What we know as the Reagan Era has very fuzzy edges. Steps. 1968, then the big step in 1980, then 1994, then 2000. Bush's presidency was when the coalition of fiscal conservatives + the religious right was at its most dominant in American politics, culture, and society.

The first step into the new era was 2008. 2020, apparently, is step two. Step three is...2034?

I think with 2020 being the way it was, 2008 will be seen as the "big step" of this new era, with 2020 being one of many small steps.

It seems like 2020 involves more change in coalitions, though?

2008 is flashy and dramatic, but it's not really anything new. It's the combination of some of the older D coalition parts (look at all those counties Obama won in West Virginia) plus one big new thing, some suburban areas (a change that was hinted at in 2004). It's very much a 1968 - Nixon had all the traditional Republican pieces, plus one big new thing, some white southerners (a change that first began to show itself in 1964).

2020 seems to involve much more change under the surface, even though the electoral map doesn't look that different - 2016's huge loss of rural/WWC support for Democrats is proven to not be a fluke, and actually becomes even more extreme in many areas, while Republicans collapse spectacularly in suburbs.
Also, there's another classic sign of realignment: the suburbs voting D for president and R downballot, and the rurals voting R for president and D downballot. Missouri actually has a really good example of this. Galloway did better than Biden in the ancestrally-Democratic Leadbelt, and worse than him in suburban counties like Platte, Clay, and St. Charles.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.02 seconds with 13 queries.