Is realignment theory dead?

[Skill and Chance]

Alternative theory: 2012 was the last election of the Reagan era and the realignment was 2014/16?

[Vladimir Leninov]

At this point I'm gonna say 2032 with a Democrat, as I don't think polarization is gonna break enough for it to happen this decade. Gun to my head:

• In 2022, the GOP retakes the House in a ripple instead of a wave. The Democrats net a gain of a seat or two in the Senate
• In 2024, the Democrats (not sure if it'll be Biden or Harris) narrowly hold the White House, failing short of retaking the House, and narrowly losing the Senate
  
• 2026 is a near 2014 level GOP wave
• After six years of Gridlock, a Republican narrowly defeats Kamala Harris in 2028
• 2030 is the start of a realignment to the 7th party system. The Democrats retake the House and Senate, and have their strongest showing at the state and local level since 2008. 3 decades of Republican gerrymandering is undone after the 2030 census, and the playing field is finally level
• Due to a recession or foreign crisis, a Democrat defeats the Republican incumbent President by a 2020 PV margin and an EV win margin somewhere between 2008 and 1996.

In 2022, the GOP retakes the House in a ripple instead of a wave. The Democrats net a gain of a seat or two in the Senate

This is bold

[Statilius the Epicurean]

Realignment theory was basically invented in the 50s to explain the shift in a single election of 1932 from decades of Republican dominance to decades of Democratic dominance under the New Deal coalition. Trying to apply that model to all of US electoral history is silly.

[Obama-Biden Democrat]

Whichever party successfully marries conservative cultural identity with socialized medicine, bank regulation, CEO salary regulation, and a platform of labor/manufacturing revitalization will win in a monumental landslide for decades... We're talking on the level of the Democrats from 1932-53 or the Republicans from 1968-1992.

SRD, 'conservative cultural identity' is subjective -so just what do you mean by it?  Most Americans support gay marriage, don't want Roe vs Wade overturned (though they would like to have abortion regulated along European lines), generally agree we haven't gone far enough on gender equality, and view immigrants positively.  Unless you are referring to gun control.    

Social conservatism is different from cultural conservatism. Cultural conservatism is issues like immigration, anti woke and anti globalization. Trump and other secular nationalist European parties emphasize cultural conservatism and downplay social issues.

[Burke Bro]

Whichever party successfully marries conservative cultural identity with socialized medicine, bank regulation, CEO salary regulation, and a platform of labor/manufacturing revitalization will win in a monumental landslide for decades... We're talking on the level of the Democrats from 1932-53 or the Republicans from 1968-1992.

SRD, 'conservative cultural identity' is subjective -so just what do you mean by it?  Most Americans support gay marriage, don't want Roe vs Wade overturned (though they would like to have abortion regulated along European lines), generally agree we haven't gone far enough on gender equality, and view immigrants positively.  Unless you are referring to gun control.   

Social conservatism is different from cultural conservatism. Cultural conservatism is issues like immigration, anti woke and anti globalization. Trump and other secular nationalist European parties emphasize cultural conservatism and downplay social issues.

Good observation. Issues like immigration, political correctness, and opposition to globalization and big tech are much more palatable for a younger, more secular generation, than traditional conservative issues like limited government, opposition to marriage equality, crime, etc.. I feel as though Trump and the modern Republican party are in a transitory phase where they haven't yet fully embraced these new conservative values and are still trying to hold onto the old ones. But if the party can successfully pair these values with left wing economic policies that mediate the effects of inequality, the time of polarization that we currently live in would come to an end and the Republican party would have a large governing coalition.

I say the Republican Party is capable of pairing these values because the movement of donors (particularly big tech ones) and college educated white voters to the Democratic Party makes the Democratic Party the party of the elite class which has benefited enormously from current economic order. This would not been true back in 90s and 00s, when the Democratic Party still had substantial support among non-college educated white voters. But coalitions are always changing.

Again, I'd like to stress that a realignment is not a guarantee. It is at times like these when our democracy and institutions are most vulnerable. And just because they've held in the past doesn't mean they will continue to hold. This pairing of populist ideas are powerful, not only because they can fundamentally change the fabric of American society, but because they can be used by demagogues like Trump to tempt ordinary Americans into voting for them. I encourage every American to seek out and support politicians who they know in their hearts to be good, virtuous people, as it is not just the morally corrupted who are capable of bringing about the changes that our country needs.

[支持核绿派 (Greens4Nuclear)]

NationStates forum post from 2017 (not by me)

Re: "Identity politics is the handmaiden of neoliberalism"

This is a great thread (I almost never say this) and I agree with the OP and the general premise contained herein.

I've argued multiple times (including in published articles which I won't be linking to so as to protect my identity) that the new political cleavage is no longer between left and right, or fought along economic/class grounds, but between populist/nationalist and elitist/globalist factions, or as Tony Blair (a man who is generally anathema to everything I stand for) described it "Open" versus "Closed".

It may or may not be the case that identity politics is an insidious plot by neoliberals to divide and conquer the economically disadvantaged, although if that is the case then the privileged have unfortunately divided themselves in the process.

Either way, I suspect we're actually going back to the 19th century political cleavage - "Whig" versus "Tory" rather than left/right or socialist/capitalist.

If this is the case, it's actually good news for the working class.

While throughout the 20th century the divide was between the rich capitalist class, and the socialistic working class, with both groups having to appeal to the middle class "swing voter" in order to gain or maintain power; in the 19th century the divide was between the aristocratic, conservative Tories and the capitalistic, liberal Whigs - with both groups having to appeal to the working class to maintain power.

As such, if identity politics leads to return of Whiggism and Toryism in the 21st century, I for one welcome it.

Also reminds me of this TalkElections thread