Two Guesses

[J. J.]

Didn't this already happen in 1988-1996?

No.

[Beet]

Didn't this already happen in 1988-1996?

No.

In 1988, a Republican was elected, and by 1996, there was a sea change in elite behavior and political coalitions in the parties. The New Deal coalition was finally dead below the Presidential level, and the GOP broke through in the South.

[J. J.]

Didn't this already happen in 1988-1996?

No.

In 1988, a Republican was elected, and by 1996, there was a sea change in elite behavior and political coalitions in the parties. The New Deal coalition was finally dead below the Presidential level, and the GOP broke through in the South.

Arguably, that happened in 1978-84.

[Person Man]

Didn't this already happen in 1988-1996?

No.

In 1988, a Republican was elected, and by 1996, there was a sea change in elite behavior and political coalitions in the parties. The New Deal coalition was finally dead below the Presidential level, and the GOP broke through in the South.

Arguably, that happened in 1978-84.

Yeah. Though, one could argue that 1988-1996 was the final death blow. What we will see here, between 2006 and say 2020 is whether the democratic party can reinvent itself or if we are heading to a Right-wing One-Party America, like antebellum America.

[J. J.]

Didn't this already happen in 1988-1996?

No.

In 1988, a Republican was elected, and by 1996, there was a sea change in elite behavior and political coalitions in the parties. The New Deal coalition was finally dead below the Presidential level, and the GOP broke through in the South.

Arguably, that happened in 1978-84.

Yeah. Though, one could argue that 1988-1996 was the final death blow. What we will see here, between 2006 and say 2020 is whether the democratic party can reinvent itself or if we are heading to a Right-wing One-Party America, like antebellum America.

No.  The Democratic party was basically out of power from 1860 until 1930  (though there were  8 years of a Democratic President).  Long term, there will be a two party system.

[Person Man]

Didn't this already happen in 1988-1996?

No.

In 1988, a Republican was elected, and by 1996, there was a sea change in elite behavior and political coalitions in the parties. The New Deal coalition was finally dead below the Presidential level, and the GOP broke through in the South.

Arguably, that happened in 1978-84.

Yeah. Though, one could argue that 1988-1996 was the final death blow. What we will see here, between 2006 and say 2020 is whether the democratic party can reinvent itself or if we are heading to a Right-wing One-Party America, like antebellum America.

No.  The Democratic party was basically out of power from 1860 until 1930  (though there were  8 20 years of a Democratic President).  Long term, there will be a two party system.

You mean the Gilded Age. Though circumstances were much different than they were today. There was a Civil War and the Dems always had a place where they could get almost uniamious support. Those sort of circumstances simply don't exist. They have been out of power 40 years since 1968, with only 12 years of a democratic president and there hasn't been a civil war to alienate themselves from the majority of the American people or an overwhelingly strong democratic base that always allows them to take half a dozen state by 3:1 in a 20 point rout on presidential election days. You are right, we will have a two-party system. Whether its democrat and republic is an entirely different issue. For exampe, 1904. The dems won like 5 or 6 states by 65% or more of the vote yet were down by 20 nationally. If that were to happen today, you would only win D.C. and the only real battle ground would be M.A....I just don't see how the Democratic Party could survive with no die-hard base through 50 years of opposition.

a 35-65 race today

a 35-65 race 90 years ago.

Federalism just won't isolate a Democratic power out of power for 50-80 years like it used to from extinction causing political futility.

[J. J.]

I think the Republican Party of today is very different than the GOP of 1976.  I would say the same thing of the Democratic Party.  I've looked what Ted Kennedy was advocating in 1980, and it was far to the left of the current Russian government, more to the left than any UK Labor Government.

And yes, the Republican Party of 1896 was very different than the Republican Party of 1904, as was the Democratic Party.

[Хahar 🤔]

Didn't this already happen in 1988-1996?

No.

In 1988, a Republican was elected, and by 1996, there was a sea change in elite behavior and political coalitions in the parties. The New Deal coalition was finally dead below the Presidential level, and the GOP broke through in the South.

Arguably, that happened in 1978-84.

Yeah. Though, one could argue that 1988-1996 was the final death blow. What we will see here, between 2006 and say 2020 is whether the democratic party can reinvent itself or if we are heading to a Right-wing One-Party America, like antebellum America.

No.  The Democratic party was basically out of power from 1860 until 1930  (though there were  8 20 years of a Democratic President).  Long term, there will be a two party system.

You mean the Gilded Age. Though circumstances were much different than they were today. There was a Civil War and the Dems always had a place where they could get almost uniamious support. Those sort of circumstances simply don't exist. They have been out of power 40 years since 1968, with only 12 years of a democratic president and there hasn't been a civil war to alienate themselves from the majority of the American people or an overwhelingly strong democratic base that always allows them to take half a dozen state by 3:1 in a 20 point rout on presidential election days. You are right, we will have a two-party system. Whether its democrat and republic is an entirely different issue. For exampe, 1904. The dems won like 5 or 6 states by 65% or more of the vote yet were down by 20 nationally. If that were to happen today, you would only win D.C. and the only real battle ground would be M.A....I just don't see how the Democratic Party could survive with no die-hard base through 50 years of opposition.

a 35-65 race today

a 35-65 race 90 years ago.

Federalism just won't isolate a Democratic power out of power for 50-80 years like it used to from extinction causing political futility.

But that means that the Democrats can't run candidates that unacceptable.

[Person Man]

Didn't this already happen in 1988-1996?

No.

In 1988, a Republican was elected, and by 1996, there was a sea change in elite behavior and political coalitions in the parties. The New Deal coalition was finally dead below the Presidential level, and the GOP broke through in the South.

Arguably, that happened in 1978-84.

Yeah. Though, one could argue that 1988-1996 was the final death blow. What we will see here, between 2006 and say 2020 is whether the democratic party can reinvent itself or if we are heading to a Right-wing One-Party America, like antebellum America.

No.  The Democratic party was basically out of power from 1860 until 1930  (though there were  8 20 years of a Democratic President).  Long term, there will be a two party system.

You mean the Gilded Age. Though circumstances were much different than they were today. There was a Civil War and the Dems always had a place where they could get almost uniamious support. Those sort of circumstances simply don't exist. They have been out of power 40 years since 1968, with only 12 years of a democratic president and there hasn't been a civil war to alienate themselves from the majority of the American people or an overwhelingly strong democratic base that always allows them to take half a dozen state by 3:1 in a 20 point rout on presidential election days. You are right, we will have a two-party system. Whether its democrat and republic is an entirely different issue. For exampe, 1904. The dems won like 5 or 6 states by 65% or more of the vote yet were down by 20 nationally. If that were to happen today, you would only win D.C. and the only real battle ground would be M.A....I just don't see how the Democratic Party could survive with no die-hard base through 50 years of opposition.

a 35-65 race today

a 35-65 race 90 years ago.

Federalism just won't isolate a Democratic power out of power for 50-80 years like it used to from extinction causing political futility.

But that means that the Democrats can't run candidates that unacceptable.

I think the Republican Party of today is very different than the GOP of 1976.  I would say the same thing of the Democratic Party.  I've looked what Ted Kennedy was advocating in 1980, and it was far to the left of the current Russian government, more to the left than any UK Labor Government.

And yes, the Republican Party of 1896 was very different than the Republican Party of 1904, as was the Democratic Party.

All this means is that the Democrats can't justify themselves as a minority, regardless of the positions they advocate, though that is an interesting idea you have about parties moving. Perhaps that could
support my theory that the democratic party will become obsolete as the Republican Party can expand to quinch the thirst of change, giving the dems no platform.

[J. J.]

I keep on saying, I do not know the changes only that I see the change coming.

[Person Man]

So, anything could happen from here on out?

[J. J.]

So, anything could happen from here on out?

I can't tell at this point.  I'm saying it is something we should be looking for.

[Person Man]

So IT COULD be anything.....at this point.

[J. J.]

So IT COULD be anything.....at this point.

I have no idea what direction it is going to go.  We could see a liberal elected, and a huge reaction against him/her.  We could see a conservative elected and a new right wing pathway opened up.  The center could shift left or right.

[Person Man]

Though a further shift to the right could be seen as simply the strengthening of the Reagan revolution, unless of course there is a more secular conservatism or a more compassionate conservatism.

[Smid]

I shall begin with a number of premises:

1. No policy foundation is perfect. No matter how perfect it may seem in theory, it won't work perfectly in practice and will always give rise to undesirable consequences.
2. Opposition to a policy foundation will form. This may be immediate, or it may be subsequent to the aforementioned undesirable consequences arising.
3. Those who oppose a particular policy foundation will always focus on the undesirable consequences in an attempt to sway public opinion to their way of thinking.
4. Eventually those who oppose the policy foundation will garner enough public support that there will be a strong shift away from the policy foundation to a new policy foundation that has been built upon by those who opposed the previous.
5. Just before the strong shift occurs, there may be a strong result in the opposite direction. This is because the opposition to the current policy foundation almost reaches the tipping point and those put forward a candidate who focuses on their alternative foundation. Because the opposition does not yet have enough support, they don't win, however the public that is completely satisfied with the status quo responds strongly to the opposition canddiate.

At the point where the public shifts from one policy foundation to another is the realignment. Because of the nature of elections, there will be a point at which the scales tip, but it may take a few years for them to tip completely (maybe three midterms?).

When this occurs, the party that dominated the previous policy foundation will do some soul searching and will be forced to re-invent itself with new candidates predominantly holding positions closer to where the lines are drawn with the realignment (for example, more conservative democrats or more liberal republicans).

I don't know if I have put that particularly clearly - I'm trying to say that opposition to a fundamental idea (not a single policy, but the foundation that links many policies) gradually rises. This might be military intervention (as opposed to the War in Iraq, which is a single policy only). It might be christian conservatism (as opposed to individual issues of abortion or gay marriage).

For this reason, I think any realignment would be more likely to be to the left rather than the right - although as JJ says, it could be leftish in some aspects and rightish in others.

Like JJ, I think a realignment is forming. When people are calling for change, and not just a new ideas, but a change in how things are actually done, it looks like people are ready to shift from one foundation to another. Also like JJ, I'm not sure what it's going to end up looking like, but I think it would probably typically be considered a shift to the left with more liberal democrats and more moderate republicans.

I'm not sure exactly what policies will be affected or what foundation specifically will be shifted, but my guess is that it's happening more in response to the War in Iraq being a crystalising issue showing perceived failures in a policy platform of overseas military intervention. I think that it will result in the US becoming somewhat more isolationist, a decrease in military spending, and a greater focus on US domestic issues such as health and education.

I think that this issue is the one that's most going to change, because the timing feels about right. Reagan increased military spending and there has been US intervention in Somalia and the Balkans before Iraq, Iraq is the tipping point where it hasn't been an immediate success in the eyes of the public and has been the issue that opponents of military intervention have been able to focus on (point 3 of my initial premises). As the 2006 mid-terms swung heavily against the Republicans as a backlash against the War in Iraq, I think that's the direction public opinion is heading.

Now... this is a long call to make, but I think that if this is the case, Indiana going to be a surprise state in November. It has over 100 casualties in Iraq (see http://projects.washingtonpost.com/fallen/states/ ) and had seats changing hands in 2006. I'm still doing some analysis on swings in the state there over the past few elections, but I think that it's going to either be quite close - and maybe even go dem for the first time in goodness knows how long.

In 2004, Bush received 60% of the vote to Kerry's 39% (I haven't looked at Congress figures yet). In 2006, Republican Congressional candidates received 49.90% of the vote to the Democrat Congressional candidates' 48.74%. I know that I've compared two different races, but I will do the 2004 Congressional figures shortly and update those figures.

[Sam Spade]

Uh, Indiana just does that from time to time.  Please pick another state for your comparison.

[Smid]

I wasn't offering Indiana as a proof of my theory, I was suggesting that at this election Indiana could yield a surprising result. Then again, it might not... I was just making the suggestion.

[J. J.]

Though a further shift to the right could be seen as simply the strengthening of the Reagan revolution, unless of course there is a more secular conservatism or a more compassionate conservatism.

It would not necessarily be an extension, but more dramatic swing to the right.

[J. J.]

5. Just before the strong shift occurs, there may be a strong result in the opposite direction. This is because the opposition to the current policy foundation almost reaches the tipping point and those put forward a candidate who focuses on their alternative foundation. Because the opposition does not yet have enough support, they don't win, however the public that is completely satisfied with the status quo responds strongly to the opposition canddiate.

Only on this point do I disagree.  I wouldn't call 1976 a strong shift to the left, when going back to 1936.  Same with the elections between 1868-1892.  I see that as almost a continuation with a break, in presidential elections, beginning with the first presidential elections of the re-alignment period.

I'm seeing parallels between 1976 and 2008, whomever eventually wins, even if they win by a landslide.  I think either Michelle, Bill, or Cindy should lean over to their respective spouses and say, "After us, the deluge," on election night.

[Beet]

I'm having a harder and harder time seeing dramatic shifts happening. I'm increasingly beginning to think that there is going to be an exhaustion or backlash against 'change' and against political participation in general. Political interest has been rising since 2000, based on three events: the 2000 election, 9/11, and the Iraq war.

Alongside the rise in political interest has been a concurrent rise in idealism. Barack Obama's candidacy is highly idealistic, and can only be seen as some sort of pinnacle. It is hard to see something more idealistic than Obama's campaign this spring yet at the same time still in touch with reality. Therefore, idealism has nowhere to go but down, and therefore political interest nowhere to go but down.

That does not mean a decrease in civic participation, but right now the zeitgeist is with being involved in politics, and when the zeitgeist is with you, that is when you beware.

[Person Man]

This is an uprising. It will be put down or it will succed.

[Smid]

Only on this point do I disagree.  I wouldn't call 1976 a strong shift to the left, when going back to 1936.  Same with the elections between 1868-1892.  I see that as almost a continuation with a break, in presidential elections, beginning with the first presidential elections of the re-alignment period.

I actually added that point in about halfway through my post. I'm not as firm on that one as some of the other parts - which is why I put in the word "may" in the first sentence of that point.

I'm afraid I can't compare and contrast the mood today with the mood in 76/80 - I was born in 1980.

[Beet]

This is an uprising. It will be put down or it will succed.

That is also a legitimate way to put it.

Look, all I am saying is that there seems to be a demand for 'change' and a rising time of participation and idealism. These periods of rising tide come in two types: a large substantive shift, or a false dawn.

The 1960s was a perfect example of false dawn. A generation that seemed to be so politically motivated ended up wasting itself on drugs and taking consumerism and cynicism to new heights, and voter participation to new lows. That was because the basis of the supposed shifts was weak.

The 1830s were a perfect example of a real substantive shift. Voter participation surged in 1828, and then continued to rise all the way through 1840, and it stayed high until the Civil War. During this time a new party system existed and a more democratic process occurred. There was something more substantive happening in 1828 that was not happening in 1960. And the way to see if an 'uprising' will succeed is look for that substance and see whether or not it is there.

[Verily]

I suppose it's a bit like comparing apples to spark plugs to speak of such radically different eras together, but what do you see in 1828 that is more substantive than in 1960?