"Realigning elections"
dazzleman:
Quote from: A18 on October 14, 2005, 09:22:30 PM
Well, at least I got some replies. Next time someone talks about a "realigning election," please link him to this thread so we can get a discussion going.
Philip, I agree with your general premise that people tend to exaggerate the importance of individual elections, and designate them as "realigning elections" without substantial reason.
There are also different degrees of realignment. The 1932 election brought about a strong and immediate realignment. I would argue that 1968-94 was an extended and moderate realignment, with the pivotal elections during that period being 1968, which started the realignment at the presidential level, 1980, which strengthened it, and 1994, which brought about long overdue change in congress.
There was a bit of a counter-realignment in 1992, as certain demographic groups shifted to the Democrats, reducing GOP dominance in presidential politics.
What I find interesting now is that for the first time in a long time, there is rough parity in voting between legislative and executive branches. In the 1980s, as large majorities were voting for Reagan, they were re-electing a heavily Democratic house, and put the Senate back in Democratic hands in 1986.
muon2:
Quote from: dazzleman on October 15, 2005, 06:02:23 AM
Quote from: A18 on October 14, 2005, 09:22:30 PM
Well, at least I got some replies. Next time someone talks about a "realigning election," please link him to this thread so we can get a discussion going.
Philip, I agree with your general premise that people tend to exaggerate the importance of individual elections, and designate them as "realigning elections" without substantial reason.
There are also different degrees of realignment. The 1932 election brought about a strong and immediate realignment. I would argue that 1968-94 was an extended and moderate realignment, with the pivotal elections during that period being 1968, which started the realignment at the presidential level, 1980, which strengthened it, and 1994, which brought about long overdue change in congress.
There was a bit of a counter-realignment in 1992, as certain demographic groups shifted to the Democrats, reducing GOP dominance in presidential politics.
What I find interesting now is that for the first time in a long time, there is rough parity in voting between legislative and executive branches. In the 1980s, as large majorities were voting for Reagan, they were re-electing a heavily Democratic house, and put the Senate back in Democratic hands in 1986.
I also agree with the premise, and I would go on to suggest that it is very hard to identify a realignment as it happens.
The election of 1968 was a good example. At the time, some political scientists were expecting a realignment, yet most pundits considering the events of the election year and its aftermath felt there was no realignment. It was only after the Reagan years that 1968 was suggested as the realignment year. On the other hand, most observers in 1981 felt that 1980 was a realignment due to the clear shift of the white urban ethnics to Reagan as the so-called Reagan Democrats.
Now with decades of hindsight we are left with a debate about the merits of 1968 vs. 1980, or the possibility of a phased realignment. Certainly Nixon utilized a "Southern Strategy" to break the Old South from the New Deal coalition, but bits of that trend date to the disaffection of the Dixiecrats in 1948. However, the Carter presidency left it unclear as to whether Nixon or Carter was the exception of the era. It only became clear with Reagan that not only was their a realignment of the South but also with other New Deal groups like the urban ethnics.
dazzleman:
Excellent points as usual, muon2. There needs to be a certain historical perspective before pronouncing a realignment. It sometimes takes some time to discern whether a realignment has taken, or is taking, place.
A18:
BTW, since World War II, the incumbent party has maintained control of the presidency 8 times, and lost it 7 times.
J-Mann:
Quote from: A18 on October 15, 2005, 02:19:41 PM
BTW, since World War II, the incumbent party has maintained control of the presidency 8 times, and lost it 7 times.
The eight-in, eight-out theory is related to the "pendulum swing" that you'll hear pundits talk about a lot. There was an article before the 2000 election from a prominent publication (I forget which) that said to expect eight years of a Republican president, since we'd had eight years of a Democrat.
Political scientists try to make this rule hold in post-WWII presidential history.
Truman -- 1945-1953 Democrat
Eisenhower -- 1953-1961 Republican
Kennedy/Johnson -- 1961-1969 Democrat
Nixon/Ford -- 1969-1977 Republican
Then, Reagan creates problems with the neat little eight-in, eight-out timeline. Carter's unpopularity got him creamed in 1980 by Reagan, whose popularity played a significant role in Bush's election in 1988.
Carter -- 1977-1981 Democrat
Reagan/Bush I -- 1981-1993 Republican
Then, things swing back into normal as far as the theory is concerned.
Clinton -- 1993-2001 Democrat
Bush II -- 2001-2009 Republican
Like any theory, eight-in and eight-out doesn't always hold water, but it makes some sense in general terms. The public in the post-WWII era wants a party change in the White House more often than they did pre-WWII. For whatever reasons, they feel it's time to give the other party a shot at control of the executive.
If the theory holds, a Democrat will undoubtedly be elected in 2008, because regardless of who the Republicans field as candidates, the public will have tired of the Bush-Republican agenda and will be ready to see a change.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page