Defining a "realignment"
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 05:05:59 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Presidential Election Trends (Moderator: 15 Down, 35 To Go)
  Defining a "realignment"
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Defining a "realignment"  (Read 724 times)
Beefalow and the Consumer
Beef
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,123
United States


Political Matrix
E: -2.77, S: -8.78

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: November 22, 2019, 12:18:51 PM »

To me there are three different phenomena that change electoral maps:

1. Hard Realignment: This is when the same people living in the same place change party affiliation without changing ideologies. Example: Southern Democrats becoming Republicans, and Northeastern moderate Republicans becoming Democrats.

2. Soft Realignment: This is when the same people living in the same place undergo an ideological change, and party affiliation changes with it. Example: the rural upper Mississippi Valley, where voters have steadily moved from progressive positions to moderate or conservative ones.

3. Demographic Shift: This is when a state or region flips due to migration in and out. Example: Delaware, New Jersey, and Connecticut flipping due to an increase in minority population, Missouri turning red due to a declining minority population, Virginia turning blue because of the expanding NOVA suburbs, and what is currently happening in Arizona, North Carolina, Georgia, and eventually Texas.

I think most of what's happening now is a demographic shift, though it seems like a lot of white voters in the Rust Belt are moving to the right ideologically, indicating a soft realignment. A true, "hard" realignment hasn't happened since the Southern/Northeastern one from 1968-2000.

Thoughts?
Logged
Orser67
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,947
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: November 23, 2019, 12:58:46 PM »

The categories make sense, and this terminology would be really helpful in discussing different kinds of realignment. But wouldn't it make sense to flip the definitions for "hard realignment" and "soft realignment"?
Logged
Frodo
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 24,511
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: November 23, 2019, 01:05:32 PM »

So 1968 should be seen as a hard partisan realignment, with 1980 being more of a soft ideological realignment. 
Logged
Wazza [INACTIVE]
Wazza1901
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,927
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: November 24, 2019, 09:32:10 AM »

So 1968 should be seen as a hard partisan realignment, with 1980 being more of a soft ideological realignment. 

Why begin in 1968? 1952 is clearly a far more suitable starting point when discussing GOP inroads into the post-war South. It does after all mark the beginning of a proper two party system there with Eisenhower flipping a number of Southern states and drawing strength even from parts of the Deep South such as its "black belt" region (white voters there) and major urban areas. Even down-ballot races became more competitive prior to 68 as shown by the election of John Tower in 60 and the strong showing for Republicans in the 1962 Alabama and South Carolina senate races.
Logged
Beefalow and the Consumer
Beef
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,123
United States


Political Matrix
E: -2.77, S: -8.78

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: November 25, 2019, 02:13:00 PM »

So 1968 should be seen as a hard partisan realignment, with 1980 being more of a soft ideological realignment. 

Why begin in 1968? 1952 is clearly a far more suitable starting point when discussing GOP inroads into the post-war South. It does after all mark the beginning of a proper two party system there with Eisenhower flipping a number of Southern states and drawing strength even from parts of the Deep South such as its "black belt" region (white voters there) and major urban areas. Even down-ballot races became more competitive prior to 68 as shown by the election of John Tower in 60 and the strong showing for Republicans in the 1962 Alabama and South Carolina senate races.

There has been an ongoing debate in US political history over how much of the Southern Realignment had to do with conservative Democrats switching parties over civil rights, and how much had to do with the growth of the New South, which was suburban, upper-middle-class, educated, and much more cosmopolitan than the Old South. These voters naturally gravitated towards the Republican party, just as their cohorts in the Northeast and (especially) the West. Suburban Atlanta, Dallas, and Charlotte start looking more and more like Orange County, CA, which I believe was already deeply Republican by 1952.

A great book that lays out this argument with a mountain of data is The Silent Majority: Suburban Politics in the Sunbelt South by Matthew Lassiter

https://www.amazon.com/Silent-Majority-Suburban-Politics-Sunbelt/dp/0691133891
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.216 seconds with 12 queries.