"Realigning elections"
A18:
Can you name one, consistent standard by which we can judge realigning elections?
There was a big difference between Harding and Taft on international issues as well, but no one calls 1920 a realigning election.
If shifts in party ideologies are the mark of realignments, then 1924-1928 is surely a realigning period. It was then that the Republicans became anti-state for the first time (a dramatic shift, for the party that once longed for a powerful federal government).
J. J.:
There isn't one consistent factor. That's part of it, a number of different factors occurring within the same 6-10 year period.
A18:
I didn't say it had to be one factor. But what are the factors (the standard)?
J. J.:
Quote from: A18 on October 20, 2005, 09:34:52 PM
I didn't say it had to be one factor. But what are the factors (the standard)?
These are the ones I've posted:
1. Electoral behavior (who votes for whom).
2. Electioneering tactics (how the election is run)
3. Candidate recruitment (who runs).
4. Elite coalition behavior (who sides with whom)
5. Formation of public policy (after the election, what difference does it make).
A18:
1. Electoral behavior (who votes for whom).
1796, 1816, 1836, 1840, 1852, 1876, 1912, 1920, 1928, 1948, 1964, 1984
2. Electioneering tactics (how the election is run)
1800 (smear campaigns), 1828 (voting requirements loosened), 1892 (secret ballot), 1896 (Bryan campaigning heavily in swing states), 1920 (women's suffrage), 1968 (Voting Rights Act), 1972 (26th Amendment)
3. Candidate recruitment (who runs).
This changes every election or two
4. Elite coalition behavior (who sides with whom)
...
5. Formation of public policy (after the election, what difference does it make).
1789, 1800, 1844, 1860, 1876, 1912, 1920, 1932, 1960 or 1964, 1980
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page