Realigning elections

[J. J.]

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.

[J. J.]

Nixon actually delivered very little in terms of a traditional realignment.

[J. J.]

We'll be able to tell if 2008 wasn't in 2010.  I think that might be the start of a re-alignment.

[J. J.]

We'll be able to tell if 2008 wasn't in 2010.

I disagree.  People say that 1968 was a realignment, but the GOP didn't do so well in 1970.  Congressional elections are, I find, not a good way to tell if something was a realignment.  The Democrats could do poorly in 2010, but landslide in 2012/2014/2016.  Presidential elections matter a lot more in determining a realignment than Congressional elections do.

I actually know very few people, in academia, that claim 1968 was a re-alignment, after the fact.  It is very hard to tell a realignment at the start.

It won't be a question of the Democrats doing poorly, but how poorly.

[J. J.]

We'll be able to tell if 2008 wasn't in 2010.

I disagree.  People say that 1968 was a realignment, but the GOP didn't do so well in 1970.  Congressional elections are, I find, not a good way to tell if something was a realignment.  The Democrats could do poorly in 2010, but landslide in 2012/2014/2016.  Presidential elections matter a lot more in determining a realignment than Congressional elections do.

I actually know very few people, in academia, that claim 1968 was a re-alignment, after the fact.  It is very hard to tell a realignment at the start.

It won't be a question of the Democrats doing poorly, but how poorly.

I dont quite get what you are saying here.  If Democrats do well in 2010, its a realignment in favor of them.  If its a neutral or only small Republican gains, its no realignment.  If its big Republican gains, its a realignment. 

I expect Republican gains in 2010, but that will be expected.  I could see the Democrats losing 20-25 seats in the House, doing worse than the GOP did in 2008, and it not being an indication of a realignment.  The Democrats would still do poorly.

Realignments tend to be 6-8 year affairs, not just one election.  2010 might indicate the start.

If I would see results like 1994 in 2010, I think I'd be looking for a realignment in 2012.

[J. J.]

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.

[J. J.]

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. 

[J. J.]

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.

[J. J.]

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.