Realigning elections

[Mr.Phips]

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).

[Mr.Phips]

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?

[Mr.Phips]

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. 

[Mr.Phips]

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. 

[Mr.Phips]

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

But he did break up the strangle-hold the Democrats had over the South prior to that time; or, more appropriately, he finalized the dissolution of Democratic power in that region began by Goldwater and expanded it out of the Deep South (he won Tennessee, Kentucky, Virginia and North Carolina, all states Goldwater failed to carry). Without Nixon to solidify and re-align that region, it's very possible that Reagan could have lost it to Carter, who ran more strongly in the South than he did in any other area of the nation in 1980.

He did almost nothing downticket for the Republicans. 

[Mr.Phips]

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

But he did break up the strangle-hold the Democrats had over the South prior to that time; or, more appropriately, he finalized the dissolution of Democratic power in that region began by Goldwater and expanded it out of the Deep South (he won Tennessee, Kentucky, Virginia and North Carolina, all states Goldwater failed to carry). Without Nixon to solidify and re-align that region, it's very possible that Reagan could have lost it to Carter, who ran more strongly in the South than he did in any other area of the nation in 1980.

He did almost nothing downticket for the Republicans. 

I don't really take that into consideration - Congressional and Presidential re-alignments seem to happen in different elections, one as the aftershock of another (case in point: 1994, which almost certainly culminated in the election of 2000).

Reagan saw a big Congressional wave in his 1980 election. 

[Mr.Phips]

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. 

[Mr.Phips]

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.

Losing 20-25 seats in the House for Democrats would be almost as bad as the 1994 results considering that there wont likely be so many open Democratic seats and there are fewer vulnerable incumbents than after 1992(which sent a record number of Democratic freshmen to Congress).  If we see a 1994 like result in 2010, it would actually mean that it is more likely that Obama will be reelected big in 2012 because Obama will be able to run hard against the Republican Congress like Clinton in 1996.  However, a Republican Congress after 2010 is almost impossible. 

[Mr.Phips]

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.