Two Guesses

[J. J.]

You may well be right JJ, as I've said for over a year now.

That being said, this does not mean that an Obama realignment is out of the cards completely; rather, its likelihood has diminished substantially.

You were not one of the people really pointing to an Obama re-alignment.

One aspect of a re-alignment is the congressional balance, however.

Generally, a party out of power will gain in one house for 3 consecutive elections and will go from minority to majority party status in one house at least.  I think Brown killed the most likely possibility of that. 

I think that means that there isn't an Obama realignment, but it doesn't mean that Obama won't be re-elected.

The recent SCOTUS decision is also an indication; campaigns tend to fought differently.  I really should do a list of what a realignment looks like, its characteristics.

It is also next to impossible to see until you are in the last stages of it.

[Sam Spade]

This is the thread for this observation...

You know, since I started revisiting my long-term cyclical analysis in late 2008 (with the stock markets' action), I must say that it has consistently pointed to one of two outcomes to occur fairly soon (probably within the next ten/fifteen years or so):

1) Democrats' power falls below that of 1994 and Republicans' power eclipses 2002. (I consider 1994 to be the modern nadir of the Democratic party, and 2002 the modern height of the Republican party).
2) Democrats' power falls below that of 1994, Republicans' power falls below the 1974 level and some new 3rd party arises, which will eventually take the place of the Republican party.

The first option does align with a lot of what you've posted here. FWIW (which may be nil).

[J. J.]

This is the thread for this observation...

You know, since I started revisiting my long-term cyclical analysis in late 2008 (with the stock markets' action), I must say that it has consistently pointed to one of two outcomes to occur fairly soon (probably within the next ten/fifteen years or so):

1) Democrats' power falls below that of 1994 and Republicans' power eclipses 2002. (I consider 1994 to be the modern nadir of the Democratic party, and 2002 the modern height of the Republican party).
2) Democrats' power falls below that of 1994, Republicans' power falls below the 1974 level and some new 3rd party arises, which will eventually take the place of the Republican party.

The first option does align with a lot of what you've posted here. FWIW (which may be nil).

In the second case, and to extents in 1932 and 1980, the minority party can change radically when it goes into the majority.

[Derek]

That's very true J.J. Another thing to remember is that people often vote the party opposite of the president into the house and senate for balance. That's been the trend since 1980. I still think people are trending to the Republicans right now because they are unhappy with Obama and not because they're interested in the Republicans' ideas. Usually Republicans are trusted more on foreign issues and Democrats on domestic issues. The economy depends on how the economy is doing and which party is in control of the white house.

[J. J.]

That's very true J.J. Another thing to remember is that people often vote the party opposite of the president into the house and senate for balance. That's been the trend since 1980. I still think people are trending to the Republicans right now because they are unhappy with Obama and not because they're interested in the Republicans' ideas. Usually Republicans are trusted more on foreign issues and Democrats on domestic issues. The economy depends on how the economy is doing and which party is in control of the white house.

Oddly, not so in the early 2000's.  Until 2006, the GOP gained seats.  In 2008, the D's gained seats.

I'm looking at the current anger at the government and I can see that being part of it.

[memphis]

That's very true J.J. Another thing to remember is that people often vote the party opposite of the president into the house and senate for balance. That's been the trend since 1980. I still think people are trending to the Republicans right now because they are unhappy with Obama and not because they're interested in the Republicans' ideas. Usually Republicans are trusted more on foreign issues and Democrats on domestic issues. The economy depends on how the economy is doing and which party is in control of the white house.

Oddly, not so in the early 2000's.  Until 2006, the GOP gained seats.  In 2008, the D's gained seats.

I'm looking at the current anger at the government and I can see that being part of it.

Very odd indeed. I wonder what in the world could have happenned in the early 2000s to make people rally around the president's party

[J. J.]

That's very true J.J. Another thing to remember is that people often vote the party opposite of the president into the house and senate for balance. That's been the trend since 1980. I still think people are trending to the Republicans right now because they are unhappy with Obama and not because they're interested in the Republicans' ideas. Usually Republicans are trusted more on foreign issues and Democrats on domestic issues. The economy depends on how the economy is doing and which party is in control of the white house.

Oddly, not so in the early 2000's.  Until 2006, the GOP gained seats.  In 2008, the D's gained seats.

I'm looking at the current anger at the government and I can see that being part of it.

Very odd indeed. I wonder what in the world could have happenned in the early 2000s to make people rally around the president's party

I don't know.  What was it in 2004?

What was it in 1998, or 1976, 1980, 1984 and even in the Senate, 1982?

[feeblepizza]

1. Obviously not

2. I could see Middle America basically trending Republican (plus ME and NH), and Dems winning in the South due to the influx of now-liberal Iraq veterans. The West Coast could very possibly trend Republican due to rich retirees, and Dems will be winning in the Southwest more often due to the Hispanic vote.

[Derek]

I see the south continuing to go Republican as well as the suburbs. The democrats will make gains in the urban areas and the country continues to become more divided. The southwest will trend democrat due to illegal immigration.

[J. J.]

1. Obviously not

2. I could see Middle America basically trending Republican (plus ME and NH), and Dems winning in the South due to the influx of now-liberal Iraq veterans. The West Coast could very possibly trend Republican due to rich retirees, and Dems will be winning in the Southwest more often due to the Hispanic vote.

I think we going to see a conservative-populist or libertarian re-alignment, though I don't know which.

[feeblepizza]

1. Obviously not

2. I could see Middle America basically trending Republican (plus ME and NH), and Dems winning in the South due to the influx of now-liberal Iraq veterans. The West Coast could very possibly trend Republican due to rich retirees, and Dems will be winning in the Southwest more often due to the Hispanic vote.

I think we going to see a conservative-populist or libertarian re-alignment, though I don't know which.

Conservative-populist. Libertarians have too big a reputation of being paranoid conspiracy theorists.

[J. J.]

Bumping in honor of Christine O'Donnell.

I said that I was expecting a re-alignment, not that I'd necessarily like it.

[Lief 🗽]

^sophisticated art joke, you probably won't get it

[J. J.]

Nor you this one.

[ShamDam]

A re-alignment election doesn't necessarily mean a landslide. The new "bases" of the party may not be apparent until many years later. For example, even though 1984 did shake up the map, the bases of each party and the real battleground states weren't really clear until 2000. Clinton was still doing pretty well in the south. So I don't think we'll know if a re-alignment election is a re-alignment election until quite some time afterwards.

[Dgov]

A re-alignment election doesn't necessarily mean a landslide. The new "bases" of the party may not be apparent until many years later. For example, even though 1984 did shake up the map, the bases of each party and the real battleground states weren't really clear until 2000. Clinton was still doing pretty well in the south. So I don't think we'll know if a re-alignment election is a re-alignment election until quite some time afterwards.

You could also argue that re-alignments are gradual in nature and not generally apparent after one election.  Nixon swept the South in 1972, winning every county in a couple of states, but the region mostly flipped back to the Democrats in 1976, but with smaller margins than before.

[J. J.]

A re-alignment election doesn't necessarily mean a landslide. The new "bases" of the party may not be apparent until many years later. For example, even though 1984 did shake up the map, the bases of each party and the real battleground states weren't really clear until 2000. Clinton was still doing pretty well in the south. So I don't think we'll know if a re-alignment election is a re-alignment election until quite some time afterwards.

You could also argue that re-alignments are gradual in nature and not generally apparent after one election.  Nixon swept the South in 1972, winning every county in a couple of states, but the region mostly flipped back to the Democrats in 1976, but with smaller margins than before.

I generally treat a re-alignments as running through 2 "off year" elections and two presidential elections.  I wound argue 1930-36 and 1978-84 elections were the realigning elections.

Normally, a landslide in one or both of the presidential elections is seen, but not necessarily a period of landslides.

One characteristic is new types of candidates coming into the arena.  You may be seeing that with O'Donnell defeating Castle.

[J. J.]

The deluge approaches?

[J. J.]

Any suggestion that there was a Democratic re-alignment have ended today.

The signs of a re-alignment are:

1.  More than a 35 seat gain in the House.

2.  More than a 5 seat gain in the Senate.

3.  A shift of control in at least one house.

Those are just the first signs, however.

[J. J.]

One thing about this election cycle.  It was much less about cultural issues and more about economic ones.

[feeblepizza]

Any suggestion that there was a Democratic re-alignment have ended today.

The signs of a re-alignment are:

1.  More than a 35 seat gain in the House.

2.  More than a 5 seat gain in the Senate.

3.  A shift of control in at least one house.

Those are just the first signs, however.

Therefore, we are experiencing a realignment to the right (Republicans gained 60+ House seats and therefore the majority, and took 8 seats in the Senate).

[J. J.]

Any suggestion that there was a Democratic re-alignment have ended today.

The signs of a re-alignment are:

1.  More than a 35 seat gain in the House.

2.  More than a 5 seat gain in the Senate.

3.  A shift of control in at least one house.

Those are just the first signs, however.

Therefore, we are experiencing a realignment to the right (Republicans gained 60+ House seats and therefore the majority, and took 8 seats in the Senate).

Well, there were two elections, 1946 and 1994, where that was not a precursor of a realignment.  This, in many ways, looks like a Republican version of 1930, which was.

In 1930, the Democrats gained 8 Senate and 52 House seats.

In 2010, the Republicans gained 6 Senate and 60+ House seats.

I would say that, if it is occurring, one element of the re-alignment is fiscal conservatism.

I tend to see a "realignment period" of four congressional elections.

1.  The Precursor Election (non-presidential).  The realignment party makes substantial gains in Congress. (1858, 1894, 1930, 1980 (the weakest)).

2.  The Grand Realignment Election  (presidential).  Incumbent president either loses re-election (1932, 1980) or is not renominated (1860, 1896).  The president's party gains at least one House by this point (it marks a party change).

3.  The Middle Election (non-presidential).  The president's party holds one house and generally (1898, 1934, 1982) will gain seats.  There is no "repudiation" of the president's party.

4.  The Confirming Election (presidential).  The president (or his successor) is re-elected; his party continues to hold at least one house (1864, 1900, 1936, 1984).

That is the metrics of it, but the causes also have to be present (which is why 1910-1916 is not a realignment).

[Penelope]

Any suggestion that there was a Democratic re-alignment have ended today.

The signs of a re-alignment are:

1.  More than a 35 seat gain in the House.

2.  More than a 5 seat gain in the Senate.

3.  A shift of control in at least one house.

Those are just the first signs, however.

I would be more inclined to say that these are the signs of a shift towards one party, not an over-all re-alignment.

Coupled with the fact that that both the enthusiasm gap and the decline in young voters hurt the Democrats incredibly, I'd say we're more seeing a shift against Obama, not a shift for the Republicans.

[J. J.]

Any suggestion that there was a Democratic re-alignment have ended today.

The signs of a re-alignment are:

1.  More than a 35 seat gain in the House.

2.  More than a 5 seat gain in the Senate.

3.  A shift of control in at least one house.

Those are just the first signs, however.

I would be more inclined to say that these are the signs of a shift towards one party, not an over-all re-alignment.

Coupled with the fact that that both the enthusiasm gap and the decline in young voters hurt the Democrats incredibly, I'd say we're more seeing a shift against Obama, not a shift for the Republicans.

Keep in mind that this is the quantification of what would be expected if 2010 was the "Precursor Election."

I also started talking about this before we knew Obama would be the nominee, much less the president.

[J. J.]

In general, a re-alignment produces changes in:

1.  Electoral behavior (who votes for whom).

2.  Electioneering tactics (how a campaign is run). 

3.  Candidate recruitment (who runs).

4.  Elite coalition behavior (who sides with whom).

5.  Formulation of public policy (after the election, what difference does it make).

Now, I would argue that there were changes in all of these after the 1978-84 realignment.

How these changes will work after the next re-alignment, I don't know.

Even in 1984, I did not expect everything that we saw in the post 1984 political world.

I obviously wrote this earlier.  There have been changes in numbers 2, 3 and 4.  I can't say that electoral behavior has changed.