|           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 08, 2020, 09:06:31 pm
News:
If you are having trouble logging in due to invalid user name / pass:

Consider resetting your account password, as you may have forgotten it over time if using a password manager.

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  U.S. Presidential Election Results (Moderators: Torie, ON Progressive)
  Realigning elections
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 Print
Author Topic: Realigning elections  (Read 74288 times)
Padfoot
padfoot714
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,446
United States


Political Matrix
E: -2.58, S: -6.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #50 on: December 08, 2006, 04:12:26 am »

Everyone keeps citing the 1968 election as the big realignment but I think that the real big one was 1964 and it all hinges on the passage of a single law in Congress.  The Civil Rights Act of 1964.  The South went Republican because the Democrats shattered their own coalition by forcing the Civil Rights Acts through Congress making it easy for Nixon to pick up the pieces in 1968.
The reason the 1964 election was so huge is that even though it was a Democratic landslide, they failed to win the base they had relied on since Reconstruction: the South.  That base was so reliable that it was commonly referred to as the Solid South at the time.  The most striking example of this is Mississippi which gave Goldwater a whopping 87% of the vote.  I would say that if an entire region suddenly undergoes a 20 point flop from one party to the other after 100 years of loyalty you have to call it a realignment. 
Logged
Padfoot
padfoot714
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,446
United States


Political Matrix
E: -2.58, S: -6.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #51 on: December 23, 2006, 05:19:55 am »

Very nicely put ndcohn.  I would have to agree 100% with what you just said.  Based on trends in the past 4 presidential elections and current population predictions I would say we are in for another realignment located in the Interior West if the Democrats are smart and don't nominate another New England Liberal.

If the current population trends hold, I also predict Ohio will be much less important in 2012.  Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, and Arizona are going to become the new battelground states as their electoral power grows and Ohio's continues to shrink.  Another possibility is that the Mid-Atlantic Coast could begin trending Democratic.  Virginia and North Carolina could become more competitive down the line if the 2006 election was any indication of where those states are headed.
Logged
Clamdick McClaw
HockeyDude
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,076
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #52 on: December 23, 2006, 12:37:00 pm »
« Edited: December 23, 2006, 12:43:47 pm by TakeOurCountryBack »

Very nicely put ndcohn.  I would have to agree 100% with what you just said.  Based on trends in the past 4 presidential elections and current population predictions I would say we are in for another realignment located in the Interior West if the Democrats are smart and don't nominate another New England Liberal.

If the current population trends hold, I also predict Ohio will be much less important in 2012.  Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, and Arizona are going to become the new battelground states as their electoral power grows and Ohio's continues to shrink.  Another possibility is that the Mid-Atlantic Coast could begin trending Democratic.  Virginia and North Carolina could become more competitive down the line if the 2006 election was any indication of where those states are headed.

I agree.  I don't think there's any question that AZ, NM, CO, and NV are going to be the big swing states of the near future.  If current trends continue, expect the Northeast to become solid for the Democrats, even more so than the South is for the GOP now.  The Midwest will probably move towards the GOP a little, making states like MI and WI more of a struggle for the Dems.  The Interior/Deep South will become the strong GOP area (KY, TN, GA, AL, MS, SC, LA, and I would say maybe even FL).  And the big swing areas will be VA and NC, and the aforementioned Western states.  Some Democrats expect Texas to move in our direction, and point to the fact that the GOP has been nominating Texans for the past 20 years.  I'd say don't count on it.  Is there one statewide elected Democrat in Texas?  I'm not sure, but if there are it's not many.  And that gorwing Hispanic population isn't going to stick with the Democrats forever if the GOP continues it's move towards populism.  The Hispanic population may be more socially conservative than the Southern whites.  This is what I see for the 2016 election, provided it's dead even. 



Some interesting ones:

Pennsylvania - STRONG DEM - Yes, I think within 10 years, this state will be as solid for the Dems as say, Washington is now.  All you have to look at is the Philly suburbs.  Mongomery County, one of the richest in the nation and for the longest time strongly Republican, just gave Ed Rendell over 70% of their vote, a 10% swing to the left.  That's insane. 

Florida - LEAN GOP - Two trends hurt the Democrats here.  One, the influx of older Americans I believe helps the GOP, whose beliefs are more traditional.  Two, the Hispanic shift towards the GOP that I believe will happen.

Colorado - LEAN DEM - The growth of those liberal ski areas and cities like Denver will push this state in the Democrats' direction pretty soon.  Maybe as soon as 2008.  Remember, this is a state Dole won. 

New Hampshire - STRONG DEM - the next Vermont, 'nuff said.

North Carolina - LEAN GOP - this state is too solidly GOP now to move that far in just 10 years.  It's gorwing fast, but it's going to take a long time before it becomes a true tossup, if it ever does.   
Logged
Padfoot
padfoot714
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,446
United States


Political Matrix
E: -2.58, S: -6.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #53 on: December 23, 2006, 04:29:33 pm »

I'm not quite convinced that the Midwest is trending Republican takeourcountryback.  If the 2006 election was any indication, the Midwest is trending Democrat.  Actually, I take that back.  I think what is happening here is that the entire Midwest is in flux.  Those states that traditionally break Republican are trending towards Democrats and vice versa.  People are looking for someone to blame for the bad economy here due to the loss of manufacturing jobs.  The party in power is an easy target.
Logged
Clamdick McClaw
HockeyDude
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,076
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #54 on: December 23, 2006, 05:40:19 pm »

I'm not quite convinced that the Midwest is trending Republican takeourcountryback.  If the 2006 election was any indication, the Midwest is trending Democrat.  Actually, I take that back.  I think what is happening here is that the entire Midwest is in flux.  Those states that traditionally break Republican are trending towards Democrats and vice versa.  People are looking for someone to blame for the bad economy here due to the loss of manufacturing jobs.  The party in power is an easy target.

I think all that's just a slight deviation off the trend.  Long term, over a decade or so, this area is going to be very friendly to the GOP, provided they continue being conservative socially and move a tad to the left economically.  I personally can't believe Kerry was able to take Wisconsin in 2004.  The polls made it seem like a sure thing for Bush (+10 for him there at one point I believe)
Logged
Kaine for Senate '18
benconstine
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,348
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #55 on: August 25, 2007, 03:41:31 pm »

1800
1828
1860
1896
1932
1948
1968
1980
Logged
MarkWarner08
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 5,812


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #56 on: August 26, 2007, 03:59:53 pm »

1800
1828
1860
1896
1932
1968 (political realignment-- American begins to move rightward)
1980 (ideological realignment -- America elects hard-line conservative President)
2008
Logged
Grand Mufti of Northern Virginia
Frodo
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,172
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #57 on: August 26, 2007, 05:47:02 pm »
« Edited: August 26, 2007, 06:22:27 pm by Frodo »

1800: Democratic-Republicans take over, power shifts from New England to the South, and spells the end of the first two-party system as the Federalists never again regain either the presidency or Congress, and towards the end of this period, the latter shall dissolve entirely after the end of the War of 1812.  Also known as the period of the 'Virginia dynasty'.

1828: Andrew Jackson's presidency heralds the beginning of a more democratic era in American politics, and the second period of a two-party system as the Democratic and Whig parties battle it out. 

1860: With the dissolving of the Whig Party over slavery in the wake of the Kansas-Nebraska Act and Dred Scott decision, a new political era opens with the beginning of the third (and current) period of a two-party system as Republicans first begin to establish their ascendancy as they battle it out with Democrats during and after the Civil War.

1896: As Civil War-era issues begin to fade, a new paradigm is set as the industrial revolution and the Gilded Age shape a new era.  Democrats decisively side with populists with the candidacy of William Jennings Bryan, and Republicans under William McKinley and Mark Hanna side with business interests, and triumph twice decisively, marking the beginning of a period of Republican dominance in which all but eight of those years were presided over by a Republican president. 

1932: The Great Depression brings a sudden end to Republican ascendance, and the beginning of an era of Democratic dominance with the New Deal coalition brought together by President Franklin D. Roosevelt.  It is during this era that organized labor is at its strongest and most influential. 

1968: Richard Nixon wins and holds on to his presidency with a Southern Strategy that involved eventually turning the South Republican as the Republican Party turned more conservative to cater to disaffected Dixiecrats.  It marks the beginning of a period of conservative dominance, marked later on with the victory of Ronald Reagan in 1980, and the Republican Revolution in 1994, and the final full flowering of the conservative Republican coalition with President George W. Bush's re-election in 2004, and final Republican consolidation in the South. 

2008: Regardless of who wins the Democratic nomination, the grinding quagmire of the Iraq War, the implosion of the conservative Republican coalition that had held together for forty years, a growing insecurity among Americans with and as a result of globalization (and free trade in particular), and the disaffection of the American people (particularly the Millennial generation as it grows older) with conservatism and the Republican Party in general will mark the beginning of another period of Democratic dominance as Americans turn once more to the left.  For their efforts to fight illegal immigration Republicans, rightly or wrongly, will be seen by Latinos as a den of nativists and xenophobes and generally unwelcoming to ethnic minorities.  As with blacks during the 1964 Goldwater campaign, the GOP will decisively cede the Latino vote as a whole to Democrats for at least a generation.  With the GOP so closely associated with the South and the Religious Right in the minds of most Americans, Democrats will find their greatest chance for expanding their power throughout the Rocky Mountain West, especially in the Southwest. 
Logged
Grand Mufti of Northern Virginia
Frodo
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,172
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #58 on: January 12, 2008, 05:54:58 pm »

Might be worth bumping this thread...
Logged
Mr.Phips
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 5,899


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #59 on: January 12, 2008, 06:00:07 pm »

1800: Democratic-Republicans take over, power shifts from New England to the South, and spells the end of the first two-party system as the Federalists never again regain either the presidency or Congress, and towards the end of this period, the latter shall dissolve entirely after the end of the War of 1812.  Also known as the period of the 'Virginia dynasty'.

1828: Andrew Jackson's presidency heralds the beginning of a more democratic era in American politics, and the second period of a two-party system as the Democratic and Whig parties battle it out. 

1860: With the dissolving of the Whig Party over slavery in the wake of the Kansas-Nebraska Act and Dred Scott decision, a new political era opens with the beginning of the third (and current) period of a two-party system as Republicans first begin to establish their ascendancy as they battle it out with Democrats during and after the Civil War.

1896: As Civil War-era issues begin to fade, a new paradigm is set as the industrial revolution and the Gilded Age shape a new era.  Democrats decisively side with populists with the candidacy of William Jennings Bryan, and Republicans under William McKinley and Mark Hanna side with business interests, and triumph twice decisively, marking the beginning of a period of Republican dominance in which all but eight of those years were presided over by a Republican president. 

1932: The Great Depression brings a sudden end to Republican ascendance, and the beginning of an era of Democratic dominance with the New Deal coalition brought together by President Franklin D. Roosevelt.  It is during this era that organized labor is at its strongest and most influential. 

1968: Richard Nixon wins and holds on to his presidency with a Southern Strategy that involved eventually turning the South Republican as the Republican Party turned more conservative to cater to disaffected Dixiecrats.  It marks the beginning of a period of conservative dominance, marked later on with the victory of Ronald Reagan in 1980, and the Republican Revolution in 1994, and the final full flowering of the conservative Republican coalition with President George W. Bush's re-election in 2004, and final Republican consolidation in the South. 

2008: Regardless of who wins the Democratic nomination, the grinding quagmire of the Iraq War, the implosion of the conservative Republican coalition that had held together for forty years, a growing insecurity among Americans with and as a result of globalization (and free trade in particular), and the disaffection of the American people (particularly the Millennial generation as it grows older) with conservatism and the Republican Party in general will mark the beginning of another period of Democratic dominance as Americans turn once more to the left.  For their efforts to fight illegal immigration Republicans, rightly or wrongly, will be seen by Latinos as a den of nativists and xenophobes and generally unwelcoming to ethnic minorities.  As with blacks during the 1964 Goldwater campaign, the GOP will decisively cede the Latino vote as a whole to Democrats for at least a generation.  With the GOP so closely associated with the South and the Religious Right in the minds of most Americans, Democrats will find their greatest chance for expanding their power throughout the Rocky Mountain West, especially in the Southwest. 

The only way 2008 will be a realignment is that if Democrats not only win the White House, but also pick up at least a dozen seats in the House and five in the Senate.  Without that happening, the Democratic President will not be able to implement any progressive reforms(i.e. Clinton in 1993-1994).
Logged
MarkWarner08
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 5,812


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #60 on: January 12, 2008, 06:54:17 pm »

Might be worth bumping this thread...
If John McCain beats Hillary Clinton, we may also see a realignment election, except this one will likely favor the GOP.
Logged
Mr.Phips
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 5,899


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #61 on: January 12, 2008, 07:35:10 pm »

Might be worth bumping this thread...
If John McCain beats Hillary Clinton, we may also see a realignment election, except this one will likely favor the GOP.

If Hillary won, would we see a realignment in favor of Democrats?
Logged
MarkWarner08
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 5,812


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #62 on: January 12, 2008, 11:12:21 pm »

Might be worth bumping this thread...
If John McCain beats Hillary Clinton, we may also see a realignment election, except this one will likely favor the GOP.

If Hillary won, would we see a realignment in favor of Democrats?
Unless she is a highly successful President who will end the War in Iraq without any major consequences, pass immigration reform without antagonizing working class, and convince 60 Senators to pass her health care plan, I can't see how see could oversee an alignment in American politics.
Logged
Mr.Phips
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 5,899


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #63 on: January 12, 2008, 11:14:30 pm »

Might be worth bumping this thread...
If John McCain beats Hillary Clinton, we may also see a realignment election, except this one will likely favor the GOP.

If Hillary won, would we see a realignment in favor of Democrats?
Unless she is a highly successful President who will end the War in Iraq without any major consequences, pass immigration reform without antagonizing working class, and convince 60 Senators to pass her health care plan, I can't see how see could oversee an alignment in American politics.

If she is going to do that, she better bring in seven more Democratic Senators and about 20 more Democratic House members. 
Logged
MarkWarner08
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 5,812


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #64 on: January 12, 2008, 11:23:07 pm »

Might be worth bumping this thread...
If John McCain beats Hillary Clinton, we may also see a realignment election, except this one will likely favor the GOP.

If Hillary won, would we see a realignment in favor of Democrats?
Unless she is a highly successful President who will end the War in Iraq without any major consequences, pass immigration reform without antagonizing working class, and convince 60 Senators to pass her health care plan, I can't see how see could oversee an alignment in American politics.

If she is going to do that, she better bring in seven more Democratic Senators and about 20 more Democratic House members. 
Which both of us agree probably won't happen.
Logged
Stranger in a strange land
strangeland
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 8,707
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #65 on: January 14, 2008, 03:28:15 pm »


The fact that those Southern states were starting to vote Republican in the first place was remarkable in itself in 1964 and '68.  Except for the Hoover landslide of 1928 and some other minor deviations, most of these states had not voted Republican since Reconstruction. 

...and there was more to '68 than just that as well.

Yes.  Before 1968 you could be a socially conservative Democrat (Strom Thrumond) and a socially liberal Republican (Eisenhower).  To some extent you could be either between 1968 and 1980.  But after Reagan took office the social lines were set in stone.  That's what's so significant about 1968.


that's why I feel like 1968 was the last big realigning election, and 1980, 1994, and 2000 were all continuations, or aftershocks, of that realignment.
Logged
Mr.Phips
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 5,899


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #66 on: January 14, 2008, 05:36:20 pm »


The fact that those Southern states were starting to vote Republican in the first place was remarkable in itself in 1964 and '68.  Except for the Hoover landslide of 1928 and some other minor deviations, most of these states had not voted Republican since Reconstruction. 

...and there was more to '68 than just that as well.

Yes.  Before 1968 you could be a socially conservative Democrat (Strom Thrumond) and a socially liberal Republican (Eisenhower).  To some extent you could be either between 1968 and 1980.  But after Reagan took office the social lines were set in stone.  That's what's so significant about 1968.


that's why I feel like 1968 was the last big realigning election, and 1980, 1994, and 2000 were all continuations, or aftershocks, of that realignment.

1968 really was not much of a realignment.  Republicans picked up few seats in Congress and Nixon governed very much like a moderate.  I would say that 1980 was a realignment, as you saw not only Reagan winning, but also several Republicans getting elected to Congress in Southern states that had never voted Republican at the Congressional level before. 
Logged
Kaine for Senate '18
benconstine
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,348
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #67 on: January 14, 2008, 08:16:24 pm »

1800-The first realigning election, since it gave complete control to one party for the next quarter of a century.  The Jeffersonians were in the majority of Congress for the entire time, and after 1812 did not face serious opposition until 1828.
1828-After this election, the Jeffersonians were eliminated, and the party system became the Democrats versus the Whigs up until the Civil War.  The South solidified its control over the government, as every President from then until the War was either a Southerner or a Southern sympathizer.
1860-This marks the period of absolute Republican dominance, at both the Presidential and Congressional levels.  From 1860-1896, only one Democrat was elected President, and the Dem,ocrats controlled the Senate for a total of 4 years.  Although the House was more fluid, the GOP was still the dominant party.
1896-Although this was not as such of a political realignment, and really just continued the Republican dominance of the last 40 years, it was a massive shift in terms of how elections were carried out, ushering in the modern type of big money and personal campaigns.  Also, at or around this time, and carrying on through 1921, is the "Progressive Era."
1932-This was the ultimate realignment, bringing in for the next 35 years the "New Deal Coalition" of blue collar workers, blacks, Jews, Catholics, and immigrants.  From 1932-1968, the Democrats controlled the Senate for 32 of 36 years, the House for 32 of 36 years, and the Presidency for 28 of 36 years.  Just as the election of 1860 entered into the GOP dominance, 1932 brought in the era of total Democratic control, that lasted at the Congressional level until 1994.
1968-This election was a Presidential realignment, with the South finally bolting the Democrats once and for all, giving its electoral votes to the GOP in every election since, with 1976 as an outlier.  This also cracked FDR's coalition in terms of the votes of Catholics and blue collar workers,  as Nixon exploited resentment over Civil Rights and social issues to unprecendented levels.
Logged
Wherever you want to go, you can't go there!
Angry_Weasel
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,434
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #68 on: January 21, 2008, 03:12:29 am »

If McCain wins, will it be a realignment or simply an aftershock of 1968? ...and if it is a realignment, how will it be one. I could see how there is a change from domestic-policy conservatism to full-blown neo-conservatism...
Logged
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,914
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #69 on: January 21, 2008, 04:22:35 am »

1800-The first realigning election, since it gave complete control to one party for the next quarter of a century.  The Jeffersonians were in the majority of Congress for the entire time, and after 1812 did not face serious opposition until 1828.
1828-After this election, the Jeffersonians were eliminated, and the party system became the Democrats versus the Whigs up until the Civil War.  The South solidified its control over the government, as every President from then until the War was either a Southerner or a Southern sympathizer.
1860-This marks the period of absolute Republican dominance, at both the Presidential and Congressional levels.  From 1860-1896, only one Democrat was elected President, and the Dem,ocrats controlled the Senate for a total of 4 years.  Although the House was more fluid, the GOP was still the dominant party.
1896-Although this was not as such of a political realignment, and really just continued the Republican dominance of the last 40 years, it was a massive shift in terms of how elections were carried out, ushering in the modern type of big money and personal campaigns.  Also, at or around this time, and carrying on through 1921, is the "Progressive Era."
1932-This was the ultimate realignment, bringing in for the next 35 years the "New Deal Coalition" of blue collar workers, blacks, Jews, Catholics, and immigrants.  From 1932-1968, the Democrats controlled the Senate for 32 of 36 years, the House for 32 of 36 years, and the Presidency for 28 of 36 years.  Just as the election of 1860 entered into the GOP dominance, 1932 brought in the era of total Democratic control, that lasted at the Congressional level until 1994.
1968-This election was a Presidential realignment, with the South finally bolting the Democrats once and for all, giving its electoral votes to the GOP in every election since, with 1976 as an outlier.  This also cracked FDR's coalition in terms of the votes of Catholics and blue collar workers,  as Nixon exploited resentment over Civil Rights and social issues to unprecendented levels.

Actually, in 1968, Wallace took the "Deep South," minus Florida, and Humphrey to Texas, Maryland and West Virginia.  1976, was the epitome of the New Deal Coalition.  And you basically had a traditional Democratic House and Senate, which began to show Democratic weakness in 1978.
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 63,031
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #70 on: January 21, 2008, 07:21:18 pm »

This also cracked FDR's coalition in terms of the votes of Catholics and blue collar workers,  as Nixon exploited resentment over Civil Rights and social issues to unprecendented levels.

This is a myth. People get 1968 mixed up with 1972.
Logged
DCCid
Newbie
*
Posts: 2
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #71 on: February 22, 2008, 09:45:59 pm »

2/3/2008 artical from Washington Post. It picks 1828, 1860,1896,1932 and 1968. Although from a different slant.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/01/AR2008020102826.html
Logged
Kaine for Senate '18
benconstine
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,348
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #72 on: December 14, 2008, 01:50:35 pm »

1800-The first realigning election, since it gave complete control to one party for the next quarter of a century.  The Jeffersonians were in the majority of Congress for the entire time, and after 1812 did not face serious opposition until 1828.
1828-After this election, the Jeffersonians were eliminated, and the party system became the Democrats versus the Whigs up until the Civil War.  The South solidified its control over the government, as every President from then until the War was either a Southerner or a Southern sympathizer.
1860-This marks the period of absolute Republican dominance, at both the Presidential and Congressional levels.  From 1860-1896, only one Democrat was elected President, and the Dem,ocrats controlled the Senate for a total of 4 years.  Although the House was more fluid, the GOP was still the dominant party.
1896-Although this was not as such of a political realignment, and really just continued the Republican dominance of the last 40 years, it was a massive shift in terms of how elections were carried out, ushering in the modern type of big money and personal campaigns.  Also, at or around this time, and carrying on through 1921, is the "Progressive Era."
1932-This was the ultimate realignment, bringing in for the next 35 years the "New Deal Coalition" of blue collar workers, blacks, Jews, Catholics, and immigrants.  From 1932-1968, the Democrats controlled the Senate for 32 of 36 years, the House for 32 of 36 years, and the Presidency for 28 of 36 years.  Just as the election of 1860 entered into the GOP dominance, 1932 brought in the era of total Democratic control, that lasted at the Congressional level until 1994.
1968-This election was a Presidential realignment, with the South finally bolting the Democrats once and for all, giving its electoral votes to the GOP in every election since, with 1976 as an outlier.  This also cracked FDR's coalition in terms of the votes of Catholics and blue collar workers,  as Nixon exploited resentment over Civil Rights and social issues to unprecendented levels.

I still agree with that, although I am a bit off on 1968.
Logged
Fmr. Pres. Duke
AHDuke99
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,743


Political Matrix
E: -0.84, S: -3.04

P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #73 on: December 14, 2008, 11:14:54 pm »

I remember our AP US Government test had a question like this on it in 2007, and the correct answer was not 1896, which is the one I marked, but 1960. I guess it was in the sense that the Northeast and cities began voting Democrat reliably for the first time and since. Chicago, LA, SF, etc... when to the Republicans like Eisenhower until then, and they haven't since.
Logged
RIP Robert H Bork
officepark
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 9,031
Czech Republic


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #74 on: December 15, 2008, 01:33:16 am »
« Edited: January 08, 2009, 04:22:33 pm by I could not think of a good user name »

1800, 1828, 1932, and 1980 are some.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length
Logout

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

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines