Realignment after all?

[A18]

yawn... more of this "realignments" nonsense.

Read this:
https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=30112.0

And actually, virtually no scholar thinks there has been a realignment since 1932.

[Gustaf]

It depends on your definition of realignement, I guess. But the switch of Southern Democrats from the Democratic to the Republican party is something I would define as a realignement. That begins in 1928 though, was reversed by FDR and then begun anew in 1948.

I agree that what we've seen lately is not much of change. While congress should start looking better for the Democrats once the full effect of the Democratic catch-up in the 90s on the presidential level sips through to the congress level the presidency is still pretty open, I'd say.

In the long term, btw, shouldn't Democratic strength in big states give them an advantage in the House? (given gerrymandering, primarily)

[memphis]

With the exception of California and New York, where the Dems do well in the House, the Dems do very poorly in large States. Texas, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Florida all have large Republican majorites. The Dems are just barely ahead in Illinois and New Jersey, where you'd think they'd have lopsided majorities.

[Gustaf]

I know that, and it's the reason why I wrote long-term...Democrats shouldn't have both senators from North Dakota either, to give just one example. Does anyone know a site where I can easily find House stats?

[jimrtex]

I know that, and it's the reason why I wrote long-term...Democrats shouldn't have both senators from North Dakota either, to give just one example. Does anyone know a site where I can easily find House stats?

House election results since 1920

[Politico]

I think we're seeing a peak of Republican power similar to the peak the Democrats enjoyed in the mid 1960s after LBJ was re-elected. Rightly or wrongly, Republicans have wrote off Bill Clinton's presidency as a "fluke" due mostly to Perot and Clinton's charisma much like Democrats wrote off Eisenhower's presidency as a "fluke." If Republicans retain a solid grip on Congress next year, I think the Republicans will probably remain in control of Congress for the next decade, at least. I'm not willing to say there has been a realignment unless that happens, though. However, no matter what happens next year, I don't think there is no way the Democrat cannot win the White House in 2008. Historically, most Americans want a split government (i.e., one party in control of at least one half of Congress, and the other in control of the executive branch). If there is a true conservative realignment, I think it will be evident in Congress more so than the executive branch, but I think most Americans will still favor the idea of a split government. And while I also think it means the Democrats are not going to have a true liberal anywhere near the White House anytime soon, a Nixonian type of Democrat like Al Gore, a self-proclaimed "centrist" candidate who would be acceptable to the Howard Deans and the Joe Liebermans of the party, could possibly win the presidency in 2008...

[jokerman]

Democrats could take the House, Senate, and Presidency right now if they just put on a populist message and took advantage of the domestic woes that are afflicting America.  The middle and lower classes are being squeezed on every side.

[minionofmidas]

yawn... more of this "realignments" nonsense.

Read this:
https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=30112.0

And actually, virtually no scholar thinks there has been a realignment since 1932.

And they're right, of course... (although even that one came over four elections, 1928 to 1940, with 1932 the biggest step...) in that the changes have been much more incremental ever since. Also, it was in this era that Congressional and Presidential election results ceased to mirror each other, although this tendency became even stronger in the 60s.