|           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 07, 2020, 09:02:44 am
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 74272 times)
giving birth to thunder
BRTD
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 88,975
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.50, S: -6.67


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #100 on: March 10, 2009, 10:16:09 pm »

Realignments tend to be 6-8 year affairs, not just one election.

Back that up with evidence plz.

I'm actually quite serious. Back your argument up. You can't expect people to treat your opinions as factual anymore (and it's a bad habit to get into in the first place), not after last year.

Prove your point.

The first and only "realigning election" will occur precisely two and a half days after the general public has finally abandoned the ridiculous paradigm. So in other words, never.

Logged
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,914
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #101 on: March 10, 2009, 10:40:01 pm »

Realignments tend to be 6-8 year affairs, not just one election.

Back that up with evidence plz.

I'm actually quite serious. Back your argument up. You can't expect people to treat your opinions as factual anymore (and it's a bad habit to get into in the first place), not after last year.

Prove your point.

You can take a look at the election cycles in 1930-36, and 1978-84, for a start.  Even 1896-1904 and 1858-1864 would be examples.
Logged
giving birth to thunder
BRTD
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 88,975
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.50, S: -6.67


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #102 on: March 10, 2009, 11:05:43 pm »

I guess the concept of realigning elections is the new bullsh!t election theory for J. J. to worship now with the Bradley Effect being irrelevant.
Logged
Nym90
nym90
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,275
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -2.96

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #103 on: March 11, 2009, 12:35:22 am »

And of course, a sample size of 2-4 is relevant.

Kinda like how Bradley and Wilder "prove" something. Smiley
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,088
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #104 on: March 11, 2009, 01:52:03 am »





(EV counts are for 1992 -- not 1976)


Here is the Presidential election of 1992:



Sure, there was a strong third-party candidate in 1992, which makes the 1992 results "paler" with candidates winning states with as little as 38% of the vote.  But note the similarities between 1976 and 1992:

1. Both Ford and GHWB were successors of Presidents as VPs.

2. Ideologically, Carter and Clinton were nearly identical.

3. Both Carter and Clinton were from the South  (Arkansas and Georgia aren't that different)

4. Both Ford and GHWB were from the North.

It looks as if in 1976, most of the North would not vote for a Southern populist; in 1992 enough of the North could. In 1980 Carter's 1976 Southern support largely turned away from him after a less-than-stellar Presidency... but in 1996 Clinton won almost the same states that he won in 1992:



Note that the wins are more decisive for both Clinton and Dole due to the weakening of support for Ross Perot.

Realignment of Presidential politics happened while the Democrats were losing Presidential elections in landslides. It would seem that some regions of the country became disgruntled with the GOP. Parties can rarely hold contradictory interests together -- hawks and doves, big business and big labor, environmentalists and environmental ravagers, or as in the South since 1964, blacks and whites.   

Now what can we say of the shift from 1992/96 to 2008? (Ignore shades as they are irrelevant in 2008 as they are from 1992 -- and I am still using 1992 electoral vote counts ):




Green: Clinton won these states at least once, but Obama got clobbered in them.

Yellow: Clinton lost these both times, and Obama has won them.

Gray:  Clinton won these both times or once, but Obama came close to winning them or would have won except for a Favorite Son effect worth about ten percentage points.

Orange: Obama picked off an electoral vote in Nebraska, which is otherwise in the blue category.

The green and yellow categories say more about who was running than about long-term political support for Parties. Obama got clobbered in Arkansas and West Virginia despite the states having two Democratic senators and a Democratic governor, suggesting that whatever his strengths as a politician, Obama was the wrong sort of candidate to win Arkansas or West Virginia -- or any other state in green.   Gray? Just luck. Obama probably beats any imaginable GOP candidate except John McCain in Arizona in 2008, and Montana and Missouri were really close.

If Obama should win any of the states in gray or lose any of the states in yellow in 2012, then that says little about the political realities on the grand scale. If he picks up any of the states in blue (except perhaps the Dakotas) or green, then that says more about Obama as President. Should some Yankee liberal like Evan Bayh pick up essentially the same states that Obama won in 2008 and get clobbered in the states in green in 2016, then that says that 1992 really set political realities in Presidential elections in stone.



 

 
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 63,027
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #105 on: March 11, 2009, 06:55:32 pm »

You can take a look at the election cycles in 1930-36, and 1978-84, for a start.  Even 1896-1904 and 1858-1864 would be examples.

You could have picked (almost) any group of elections and claimed the same thing. Voting patterns always shift about a bit, American ones especially so. The changes between the 1936 and 1940 elections, for example, were pretty dramatic in some areas. Realignment? I've never heard anyone seriously suggest that. Or, say, compare 1948 to 1952; huge changes all over the place. Realignment?
I suppose you could argue that it's wrong to just consider Presidential elections, but you'd just be shooting yourself in the foot, given that you dredged up 1978-84.
Logged
Nym90
nym90
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,275
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -2.96

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #106 on: March 11, 2009, 07:39:55 pm »

First of all, we need a good definition of what a "realigning election" is.

It would seem the generally accepted definition is one that produces results very different from elections that preceded it, and very similar to elections that follow it (at least for up to a generation or so of time) such that it marks a clear and relatively permanent (as much as anything in poltics can be, at least) change.

No single election truly fits that definition if the results are examined closely enough.
Logged
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,914
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #107 on: March 13, 2009, 09:37:00 am »

You can take a look at the election cycles in 1930-36, and 1978-84, for a start.  Even 1896-1904 and 1858-1864 would be examples.

You could have picked (almost) any group of elections and claimed the same thing. Voting patterns always shift about a bit, American ones especially so. The changes between the 1936 and 1940 elections, for example, were pretty dramatic in some areas. Realignment? I've never heard anyone seriously suggest that. Or, say, compare 1948 to 1952; huge changes all over the place. Realignment?
I suppose you could argue that it's wrong to just consider Presidential elections, but you'd just be shooting yourself in the foot, given that you dredged up 1978-84.

No, not really.  In the House, since 1980, even after bad years, the GOP has never reached the 1932-78 lows it had.  Even post war, the GOP had five worse election years before 1980 than after 1980 (inclusive).  In the Senate, same period, also had five lower years than after.  The range moved. 
Logged
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,914
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #108 on: March 13, 2009, 10:05:46 am »

The average (though someone please check my math, as it's hard reading off a screen) post 1980 GOP caucus in the House was 211.  Post war through 1980, it was 152.25.  It is a rather dramatic difference.
Logged
Mr.Phips
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 5,898


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #109 on: March 13, 2009, 11:37:26 am »

The average (though someone please check my math, as it's hard reading off a screen) post 1980 GOP caucus in the House was 211.  Post war through 1980, it was 152.25.  It is a rather dramatic difference.

The pre-1980 average is probably skewed by the 1974, 1964, 1958, and 1930's results.  Those elections all gave Democrats a number of seats that was unsustainable long term. 
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 63,027
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #110 on: March 13, 2009, 12:16:17 pm »

1946: 246
1948: 171
1950: 199
1952: 221
1954: 203
1956: 201
1958: 153
1960: 174
1962: 176
1964: 140
1966: 187
1968: 192
1970: 180
1972: 192
1974: 144
1976: 143
1978: 158
1980: 192
1982: 166
1984: 182
1986: 177
1988: 175
1990: 167
1992: 176
1994: 230
1996: 228
1998: 223
2000: 221
2002: 229
2004: 232
2006: 202
2008: 178

The apparent centrality of 1980 (even writ large to include all between 1978 and 1984) is not immediately obvious.
Logged
Nym90
nym90
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,275
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -2.96

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #111 on: March 13, 2009, 01:07:23 pm »

Al is right. 1980 was a response to Carter's perceived performance and Reagan's personal appeal, not any sweeping realignment. Democrats still remained quite strong at the Congressional level throughout the 1980's, despite Reagan's popularity.
Logged
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,914
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #112 on: March 13, 2009, 04:43:50 pm »

1946: 246
1948: 171
1950: 199
1952: 221
1954: 203
1956: 201
1958: 153
1960: 174
1962: 176
1964: 140
1966: 187
1968: 192
1970: 180
1972: 192
1974: 144
1976: 143
1978: 158
1980: 192
1982: 166
1984: 182
1986: 177
1988: 175
1990: 167
1992: 176
1994: 230
1996: 228
1998: 223
2000: 221
2002: 229
2004: 232
2006: 202
2008: 178

The apparent centrality of 1980 (even writ large to include all between 1978 and 1984) is not immediately obvious.

You should take a look at this:

Republican Average (by decade) House numbers from 1890

147 1880-88  Base

170 1890-98  +037
219 1900-08  +049
187 1910-18  -032
256 1920-30  +070


139 1930-38  -145
196 1940-48  +055
165 1950-58  -034
174 1960-68  +009
163 1970-78  -011


178 1980-88  +015
204 1990-98  +026
212 2000-08  +008

Democratic         (Gap)

168 1880-88  Base (-021)

138 1890-98  -030 (-048)
158 1900-08  +020 (-029)
231 1910-18  +073 (+041)
176 1920-28  -055 (-060)

Since the 1980's there has been an increase in the average number of House Republicans, each decade; that hasn't happened since prior to 1890, if then (I stopped looking).  It wasn't a 1930's style Democratic knockout for the GOP.  It is weaker, but it is there and it's more pronounced in the Senate.
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 63,027
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #113 on: March 14, 2009, 06:47:13 am »

I dispute the significance of decades and of handling data like that; the patterns can be grossly misrepresented. For instance:

2000: 221
2002: 229
2004: 232
2006: 202
2008: 178

Your little tables show gradual Republican growth over this period. It's pretty obvious that that is not "the story" here.

In fact, your little tables basically work by fluke. Take the '80's; the only reason for the increase in the average compared to the '70's is the fact that there was a decent Republican year in 1980 (with many of the gains lost pretty quickly) and no ghastly 1974-like election during that decade. In fact, the Republicans held more seats in the early '70's than they did the late '80's!
Logged
Grand Mufti of Northern Virginia
Frodo
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,167
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #114 on: November 26, 2012, 10:24:15 pm »
« Edited: November 26, 2012, 10:27:28 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.  

I still hold to this, though I should have foreseen that we would make also make what looks to be lasting gains throughout the coastal South.  
Logged
Oh Jeremy Corbyn!
unempprof
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,635


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #115 on: November 26, 2012, 11:13:03 pm »

1964 or 1968 was not a realigning election.  Yes, the South gave the Democrats and LBJ the middle finger, but once a Southerner such as Carter or Clinton were on the ticket, the South would vote for the Democrats again.  That tactic however didn't work in 2000 where Gore lost even his home state.  The two parties despite trying hard to sound moderate had officially the two opposites in a very polarized country.  Conservative Democrats became a rarity and Liberal Republicans became an oxymoron (Snowe and Collins are the last ones).

The map hasn't changed much since 2000.  In 3 elections we have only seen a small number of states flip back and forth while the two parties have built a wall, the Democrats on the Northeast, the Great Lakes and the Pacific Coast and the Republicans in middle America and the deep South.
This is why 2000 was a real realigning election.
Logged
Oldiesfreak1854
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,635
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #116 on: November 27, 2012, 07:30:53 pm »

1964 or 1968 was not a realigning election.  Yes, the South gave the Democrats and LBJ the middle finger, but once a Southerner such as Carter or Clinton were on the ticket, the South would vote for the Democrats again.  That tactic however didn't work in 2000 where Gore lost even his home state.  The two parties despite trying hard to sound moderate had officially the two opposites in a very polarized country.  Conservative Democrats became a rarity and Liberal Republicans became an oxymoron (Snowe and Collins are the last ones).

The map hasn't changed much since 2000.  In 3 elections we have only seen a small number of states flip back and forth while the two parties have built a wall, the Democrats on the Northeast, the Great Lakes and the Pacific Coast and the Republicans in middle America and the deep South.
This is why 2000 was a real realigning election.
One of my college PoliSci textbooks said that 1968 was a realignment and the beginning of the current party system, but I must respectfully disagree.  In 1968, the Democrats lost the South largely because Wallace split the Democratic vote (especially among Southern Democrats) on civil rights.  2000 was by no means a realignment, except maybe a partial one.  Many of the Southern states that voted for Clinton in 1992 and/or 1996 haven't voted for a Democrat for president since, and probably won't until Democrats nominate someone more moderate.  Many would also argue that 1980 was a realignment, and in a sense, they're right.  It was the first time that the South became solidly Republican in national elections, aside from Clinton.  However, the last real realignment was 1992.  Most of the states/regions that voted one way in 1992 have consistently voted that way since then (although many states that have voted for the same party in every election since then are still swing states because they've been close a few times.)  Clinton got the suburban women, moderates, and other similar voters to vote Democrat (largely because of social issues), and they've been doing it ever since.  I like the current party system the "Clinton Party System", which favors Democrats, because that's what it is.  The Clinton coalition is alive and kicking.
Logged
Skill and Chance
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 5,182
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #117 on: November 27, 2012, 08:00:38 pm »

1964 or 1968 was not a realigning election.  Yes, the South gave the Democrats and LBJ the middle finger, but once a Southerner such as Carter or Clinton were on the ticket, the South would vote for the Democrats again.  That tactic however didn't work in 2000 where Gore lost even his home state.  The two parties despite trying hard to sound moderate had officially the two opposites in a very polarized country.  Conservative Democrats became a rarity and Liberal Republicans became an oxymoron (Snowe and Collins are the last ones).

The map hasn't changed much since 2000.  In 3 elections we have only seen a small number of states flip back and forth while the two parties have built a wall, the Democrats on the Northeast, the Great Lakes and the Pacific Coast and the Republicans in middle America and the deep South.
This is why 2000 was a real realigning election.
One of my college PoliSci textbooks said that 1968 was a realignment and the beginning of the current party system, but I must respectfully disagree.  In 1968, the Democrats lost the South largely because Wallace split the Democratic vote (especially among Southern Democrats) on civil rights.  2000 was by no means a realignment, except maybe a partial one.  Many of the Southern states that voted for Clinton in 1992 and/or 1996 haven't voted for a Democrat for president since, and probably won't until Democrats nominate someone more moderate.  Many would also argue that 1980 was a realignment, and in a sense, they're right.  It was the first time that the South became solidly Republican in national elections, aside from Clinton.  However, the last real realignment was 1992.  Most of the states/regions that voted one way in 1992 have consistently voted that way since then (although many states that have voted for the same party in every election since then are still swing states because they've been close a few times.)  Clinton got the suburban women, moderates, and other similar voters to vote Democrat (largely because of social issues), and they've been doing it ever since.  I like the current party system the "Clinton Party System", which favors Democrats, because that's what it is.  The Clinton coalition is alive and kicking.

1992 is compelling as a realignment because it was the first time a Democrat united the Northeast and West Coast in a non-landslide win.  However, there wasn't exactly a policy sea change under Clinton, like we saw with FDR and Reagan.  The other obvious candidate is 2008.  If universal health care is not challenged by the next Republican president, we will look back on 2008 as a realignment.  There were also several Southern states that went heavily for Clinton where Obama didn't even compete either time.  But the only Bush-Dole state that Obama won twice is VA, and that has an idiosyncratic explanation.  So it really could be 1992 or 2008.
Logged
Oldiesfreak1854
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,635
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #118 on: November 27, 2012, 09:15:31 pm »

1964 or 1968 was not a realigning election.  Yes, the South gave the Democrats and LBJ the middle finger, but once a Southerner such as Carter or Clinton were on the ticket, the South would vote for the Democrats again.  That tactic however didn't work in 2000 where Gore lost even his home state.  The two parties despite trying hard to sound moderate had officially the two opposites in a very polarized country.  Conservative Democrats became a rarity and Liberal Republicans became an oxymoron (Snowe and Collins are the last ones).

The map hasn't changed much since 2000.  In 3 elections we have only seen a small number of states flip back and forth while the two parties have built a wall, the Democrats on the Northeast, the Great Lakes and the Pacific Coast and the Republicans in middle America and the deep South.
This is why 2000 was a real realigning election.
One of my college PoliSci textbooks said that 1968 was a realignment and the beginning of the current party system, but I must respectfully disagree.  In 1968, the Democrats lost the South largely because Wallace split the Democratic vote (especially among Southern Democrats) on civil rights.  2000 was by no means a realignment, except maybe a partial one.  Many of the Southern states that voted for Clinton in 1992 and/or 1996 haven't voted for a Democrat for president since, and probably won't until Democrats nominate someone more moderate.  Many would also argue that 1980 was a realignment, and in a sense, they're right.  It was the first time that the South became solidly Republican in national elections, aside from Clinton.  However, the last real realignment was 1992.  Most of the states/regions that voted one way in 1992 have consistently voted that way since then (although many states that have voted for the same party in every election since then are still swing states because they've been close a few times.)  Clinton got the suburban women, moderates, and other similar voters to vote Democrat (largely because of social issues), and they've been doing it ever since.  I like the current party system the "Clinton Party System", which favors Democrats, because that's what it is.  The Clinton coalition is alive and kicking.

1992 is compelling as a realignment because it was the first time a Democrat united the Northeast and West Coast in a non-landslide win.  However, there wasn't exactly a policy sea change under Clinton, like we saw with FDR and Reagan.  The other obvious candidate is 2008.  If universal health care is not challenged by the next Republican president, we will look back on 2008 as a realignment.  There were also several Southern states that went heavily for Clinton where Obama didn't even compete either time.  But the only Bush-Dole state that Obama won twice is VA, and that has an idiosyncratic explanation.  So it really could be 1992 or 2008.
If I understand correctly, a realignment doesn't require any major policy change, it just requires a change in the voting patterns.  I realize that issues change over time, but the only thing you need is a change in the way people vote to see a major shift.
Logged
Cath
Cathcon
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 24,688
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #119 on: November 27, 2012, 09:58:32 pm »

It's generally noted that for the most part, re-alignments happened every 36 years.

1824 (36 years after our first election), 1860, 1896, 1932, and 1968. I can't really call out anything special about 2004, though certain nuanced arguments could be made (I would never attempt to make them and if they could be made about '04, they can be made about any election).

It was noted in a book I read about McKinley that the three eras of Republican dominance (1860-1884ish, 1896-1932, 1968-2008ish I guess) began with an alliance of sorts with labor. 1860 and 1896 are obvious. However, from what I've read, any hint of specific establishment labor figures going Republican happened in '72, not 1968. I think that could actually be labeled a sort of re-aligning election, though even Nixon's alliance with labor didn't last.
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,088
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #120 on: December 01, 2012, 03:39:01 pm »

Here's my fresh pick for a Realigning Election -- 1952. Ignore electoral votes, as those shown are for 2012. As I show, 2012 and 2008 will be relevant.



Eisenhower won a bunch of states that Republican nominees just did not win in those days -- but that they won consistently after that. It may be hard to believe that such states as Arizona, Idaho, Oklahoma, Utah, and Wyoming used to vote for Democrats except in Republican blowouts -- but each one of those states has voted once each for a Democratic nominee for President. Virginia was in that category until 2008. (Indiana was close for Truman in 1948 and was in that category until 2008).

As is to be expected in a 442-89 landslide, Eisenhower won several states that usually went Democratic before and since. Massachusetts, Minnesota, and Rhode Island went twice for Eisenhower, but since 1960 they have gone at most three times for Republican nominees -- Nixon in 1972, Reagan in 1980, or Reagan in 1984.

Red -- Truman 1948, Stevenson 1952
Blue -- Dewey 1948, Eisenhower 1952
Green -- Thurmond 1948, Stevenson 1952
Gray -- Truman 1948, Eisenhower 1952
White -- Did not vote for President in 1948 or 1952

Oddly this map has some bearing on 2008 and 2012 -- exactly sixty years after "Dewey Defeats Truman*" and "I Like Ike, Part I". In  2008 Barack Obama won every state in blue or  gray to the east of the Mississippi River except Tennessee, only one state in red (North Carolina -- barely), and none in green -- and in 2012 he won every state east of the Mississippi in blue or gray except Indiana and Tennessee. I have no idea how Alaska, DC, or Hawaii would have voted in 1948 or 1952, so I shall remain silent about them. But I can graft on yellow to mark states that went Truman '48 - Eisenhower '52 - Obama '08/'12 to spare some verbiage:




Red -- Truman 1948, Stevenson 1952
Blue -- Dewey 1948, Eisenhower 1952
Green -- Thurmond 1948, Stevenson 1952
Gray -- Truman 1948, Eisenhower 1952, McCain 2008, Romney 2012
White -- Did not vote for President in 1948 or 1952
Yellow -- Truman 1948, Eisenhower 1952, Obama both 2008 and 2012

*Contrary to myth, the 1948 Presidential election wasn't all that close. Truman beat Dewey by about 4% of the popular vote and 114 electoral votes.


So why is 1952 a realigning election? Just look at the 31 (2012 count of electoral votes)   electoral votes that used to go reliably D in Presidential elections that went reliably R in Presidential elections (AZ, ID, OK, UT, WY) for at least sixty more years and  another 13 (VA) for fifty more years. 44 electoral votes is the equivalent now of 4/5 of those of California,  six more than Texas, one more than New York and Michigan together (or Georgia and Florida), four of Arizona or Indiana, or the combination PA-NJ-MD. That is six more than the five states that Clinton won twice but Obama lost by 10% or more (Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Tennessee, and West Virginia) twice.  An election that swings 44 electoral votes (again, 2012 count) for 50 years, a period much longer than all but the longest political careers, is a huge realignment. 
Logged
Blackacre
Spenstar3D
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,117
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.35, S: -7.22

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #121 on: December 01, 2012, 06:30:38 pm »

2006 could be something. That was the year the Republican dominance of power ended and the Democrats took back Congress for the first time since they lost it in 1994. If the Republican party never again achieves what they had from 2000 until that point, 2006 would be a huge "beginning of the end" case. If they do, then nevermind.

Alternatively, 2008, the first time someone won the Presidency without the White vote, establishing the Democratic party as the party of the minority-youth-LGBT-(single)women coalition, and the Republican party as the party of the older white men. 2012 was a reaffirming of both coalitions and sort of a magnifier for 2008.
Logged
Cory Booker
olawakandi
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 34,359
Jamaica


Political Matrix
E: -6.84, S: -0.17

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #122 on: December 12, 2012, 03:47:35 pm »

1800 Slavery/Jeffersonian era Whigs and Southern Democrats
1860 Lincoln railroad era Nat'l GOP and Democrats
1912 Wilson era Federal income tax Labor v Torie
1932 FDR era Secular v Trad'l

Red for Dem
Blue for GOP
Logged
Small Business Owner of Any Repute
Mr. Moderate
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,447
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #123 on: December 13, 2012, 08:32:21 pm »

I will say that 2012 will largely be viewed as a major generational turning point -- Generation Y is finally old enough to care about voting, and Generation X is finally old enough to care about running for office. Public opinion finally tipped in favor of marijuana legalization and gay marriage. The youths finally have more voting power than the olds on two key cultural issues.

Those who oppose change are just dying too fast, and Baby Boomers aren't as resistant to social evolution as their (largely racist) parents were. And let's be honest, growing up as a child through the Bush and Obama eras isn't going to solidify a very conservative outlook on life. The voters coming online in the next 10 years are probably going to be even more liberal than those currently in the mix. Blame the war in Iraq and the perceived war on gays.
Logged
Oldiesfreak1854
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,635
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #124 on: December 21, 2012, 10:48:31 am »

Clearly 1992 was a realignment, since Democrats have won 4 out of 6 elections since then, and the way different regions have voted is largely the same since then, and it wasn't before.  Here's mine:

1932 Democrats won 8 out of 12
1980 Republicans won 3 out of 3
1992 Democrats won 4 out of 6

Just for kicks to prove that '92 was a realignment, let me show you what percentages of the elections from 1932-1988 and from 1992-2012 went for a given party.

1932-1988:


Electoral Vote Count (Using Today's EVs)
Republicans- 325
Democrats- 213

1992-2012:


Democrats- 284
Republicans- 216
Tie- 38

Granted, 1932-1988 was a much longer period of time, but if that's not a realignment, then I don't know what is.
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