"Realigning elections"
A18:
So I get 1896 only once, and I get 1920 three times (excluding #3 for each).
J. J.:
Quote from: A18 on October 20, 2005, 09:52:09 PM
1. Electoral behavior (who votes for whom).
1836, 1840, 1852, 1876, 1912, 1920, 1928, 1948, 1964, 1984
Not really. 1900, IIRC had an extremely huge turnout as did 1932 and 1936. In 1948, you still had the same basic voting patterns. Ever hear of the "New Deal Coalition?"
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
You are confusing a structural change or a change in law with who goes out to vote. Who votes is different from who is eligible to vote.
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Nope, look at successful candidate recruitment. 7 of the last 8 of the last presidential elections were one by someone who was a governor. 1 of the 8 prior to that were governors (this occurred earlier and is considered a "proto-realignment." So was Al Smith's nomination in 1928.)
Also, you tended, in both 1978-84, and 1930-36 to have younger people elected to the House and Senate.
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Nothing as dramatic as the changes between 1896-04, 1930-38, 1980-84. Of course the greatest of them all was 1860.
A18:
I.
The elections of 1932 and 1936 did not have "huge" turnout, much less "extremely huge." Turnout was higher in 1940.
It was in 1948 that the Solid South "broke."
II.
You said a change in how the election is run, not who votes.
III.
What an arbitrary rule for sorting elections into "realignment" categories. Whether we pick senators or governors is what you're looking for? Most of this just has to do with (a) Watergate: how we view insider and (b) people's Senate records becoming campaign issues.
IV, V.
What dramatic changes resulted from the 1896 election? The Pure Food and Drug Act and Meat Inspection Act are hardly dramatic, and I don't know that they can be fairly associated with the 1896 and 1900 elections, since voters didn't know they were getting Roosevelt's "progressive" agenda handed to them.
The end of Reconstruction is far more dramatic than anything that happened from 1896-1904. The civil rights movement was largely forgotten, as the parties moved on to new issues, such as wrestling with the tariff and civil service reform.
If you want real dramatic change, look at 1912-1920. Here you get the Federal Reserve System, the progressive income tax, the modern estate tax, the popular election of senators, women's suffrage, and the first state-run economy (World War I). Most of the "New Deal" was an extension of Wilson's so-called "progressive" agenda.
The changes from 1960-1968 also represented a tidal wave of reform: Tax cut, Medicare, Medicaid, Civil Rights Act, Voting Rights Act, etc.
I wouldn't say all that much happened between 1980 and 1984. You got a large tax cut, yes. But I included it because the "Reaganite" vision has pretty much defined the last 25 years: free trade, tax cuts, deregulation of industries, inflation-targeting, welfare reform, New Federalism, the Rehnquist Court's recent limits on the Commerce Clause, etc.
J. J.:
Quote from: A18 on October 20, 2005, 10:40:06 PM
I.
The elections of 1932 and 1936 did not have "huge" turnout, much less "extremely huge." Turnout was higher in 1940.
It was in 1948 that the Solid South "broke."
Both are incorrect. In 1920, you had about 26 million voters, in '24, that wen up by a million. 1928 had 36 million, but 1936 had 45 million voters. Now, from '24 or '28 you did have new people permitted to vote and you did not have a greater than 60% increase in the VAP. A greater percentage of the VAP voted, substantially greater.
1948 occurred for one election and did not encompass the entire South; you had a regional candidate that dented the New Deal Coalition, but this shifted back. It wasn't a long term trend.
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
I said "Electioneering tactics". A change in eligibility requirements is not " Electioneering tactics."
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Not hardly. We tend to to vote for people with a certain background. We suddenly stopped looking at people from the Senate or high administrative position in the Federal government to run for president, and began looking people that ran states.
Records have always been part of the campaigns of the past century.
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Oh, I don't know, perhaps the emergence of the USA as a Great Power (militarily). Strong support for the gold standard (which Bryan opposed) at the start. Massive (for its day) governmental regulation under TR.
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
If you were Black, yes. If you were white, as most of the country was, no.
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Virtually none of the social welfare programs came out of this period. It was TR's chosen successor, Taft, who drafted the direct election of Senators amendment and just after Taft took office that the XVI amendment was proposed (1909). The latter was originally constructed as basically a tax on millionaires. Those two are not part of Wilson's agenda, but were a result of the shift in the GOP, prior to Wilson.
Almost none of the "Social Contract Agenda" came from this period.
Even in terms of WWI, TR was one of the leading proponents of early entry, prior to Wilson.
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Medicare and Medicaid very good examples of expansions of programs that begun in 1935. Even the bureaucracies that manages them are the Social Security Administration and state run welfare offices, respectively.
Yes, there were new policies, but beginning of most of these was in the period from 1930-36.
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
One thing that you've missed, which is telling, is Social Security. Landon ran against it in 1936 and no nominee really challenged the status quo until Reagan came along in 1980. Now, it's much more common.
A18:
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
No one given just the numbers would pick out 1932 as the high point for this period.
1912: 58.8
1916: 61.6
1920: 49.2
1924: 48.9
1928: 56.9
1932: 56.9
1936: 61.0
1940: 62.5
1944: 55.9
1948: 53.0
As I said, 1940 was a year of higher turnout. Turnout was also higher in 1912.
After 1948, the South never voted as resoundingly Democratic again.
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Er, the outgoing Cleveland administration also backed the gold standard.
Although the U.S. did emerge as a world player
As I said earlier: (a) the voters didn't know they were getting TR's "progressive" policies, since 1896 and 1900 can't be seen as realigning elections for that reason; (b) the World War I economy represented a far more drastic change.
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
It was a change for everybody: the dawn of a new era. The issues changed, the bases of power changed (the South becoming solidly Democrat), and the Democrats would control the House of Representatives for all but 16 of the next 20 years.
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Not important. What's important is that the changes were more drastic than those of 1896-1900, by any reasonable definition.
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
I thought you we were talking about changes in the electoral process, which is why I mentioned the 17th amendment.
The first post- 16th amendment income tax was approved by Wilson in October of 1913.
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
I don't see what these have to do with anything. With regard to the second, it was Wilson that got it done.
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
How did Reagan challenge the status quo on Social Security? He just raised payroll taxes (like most presidents since the 1930s).
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page