Realigning elections

[Nym90]

… White is for two states (Florida, Ohio) that were close in 2000, 2004, and 2008, and that Republicans must both win to win the Presidency. If the Democrat wins either of these two states, he wins the Presidency in 2012. Clinton won both states both times, and Obama won both once. …   

Thoughtful analysis. One fact about Bill Clinton: he did not win both Ohio and Florida in his 1992 and 1996 elections. Clinton carried an Ohio-and-Georgia combination in 1992; he then won the Ohio-and-Florida combo in 1996.

Some more errors in the post were that Clinton only won Colorado once; he lost it in 1996. And also Clinton never won North Carolina, much less winning it twice, and as you pointed out, he also did not win Georgia twice, rather he lost it in 1996 too.

Otherwise though, certainly excellent analysis, I agree.

[Nym90]

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

Kinda like how Bradley and Wilder "prove" something.

[Nym90]

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.

[Nym90]

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.