|           
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2020, 03:55:54 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 (search mode)
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: Realigning elections  (Read 74229 times)
muon2
Modadmin
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,491


« on: August 19, 2005, 06:49:50 am »

Beef makes some good points about 2000 as different from 1968.

As a student during the 1968 election and run up to 1972, I can say that the pundits at the time did not consider 1968 realigning. Because Carter restored much of the traditional Dem areas in 1976, there was still no declaration of a realignment until well after Reagan was elected. At the time, 1980 seemed to be the critical election. It was really during the Clinton era that the importance of 1968 as a realignment began to be discussed.

By the same token, 2000 may be difficult to measure as a realignment so soon after the fact. Realignments like 1860 or 1932 that are immediately obvious are balanced by 1896 and 1968 that were clearer in hindsight. The generational pattern of 28-36 years for a realignment plus the polarization of the electorate makes 2000 a good candidate for a realignment. The next two presidential elections will help tell if 2000 fits the model.
Logged
muon2
Modadmin
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,491


« Reply #1 on: March 08, 2009, 07:14:31 am »

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.

Indeed. Many experts see the election of Carter in 1976 as a classic Democrat victory in the model of any post New Deal election. The Deep South returned to the Democrats after the civil rights upheavals of the 60's. CA, IL and MI were Republican in that close election.

For those experts 1980 is the realignment. After that TX, AL, MS, and SC have been strictly GOP for President.
Logged
muon2
Modadmin
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,491


« Reply #2 on: December 21, 2012, 09:51:26 pm »

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.

You might make it more clearly by splitting that long stretch into 1932-1960 and 1964-1988. Then you'd have 8, 7, and 6 elections in your representative maps.
Logged
Pages: [1] Print 
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