Wasn't 1992 a realigning election?

[Franzl]

Within "4-6 years?" Why? Or did you just pull those numbers out of your ass? Realignments have never worked that way in American politics.

Everything is possible in J.J.'s world. (as long as it somehow helps the Republican and harms the Democrat, which, of course, is almost always the case according to him.)

[anvi]

I don't know the theory of realignment.  But since the Clinton '92 win, a number of states with a half-ton of electoral votes have consistently voted Democratic: California, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Michigan and New Jersey.  In today's value, that's 129 electoral votes that have voted gone to Democratic candidates both good and bad for the last four elections.  In other words, Clinton's campaigns have resulted in 47% of the total electoral votes needed to win the presidency (again in today's value) being the Democrats' to lose.  I don't know whether or not that should be called a "realignment," but it's a pretty big deal.

[bullmoose88]

Well certain states that hardly ever voted Democratic went Democratic for the first time like California, Vermont, Connecticut, New Jersey, Maine, Delaware, New Hampshire and seem to have stuck that way. Which is somewhat realigning, I suppose. 

I think many of the trends that manifested itself were slowly getting their start in 1992 with NoVA, Bay Area burbs, Philly burbs, So. FL becoming more and more D.

The Southern eV's were totally won on personal appeal however.

The Phila 'burbs went Republican for House, Senate, and Governor in 1994, and for Governor and Senate in 1998, with the House seat that flipped being close.

Greenwood even took PA-8 for the Rs in 1992.

[pbrower2a]

Realignments seem to happen slowly with demographic shifts and generational change.  Using the electoral vote totals for 2004 and 2008 one finds that between 1992 and 2008, inclusively the Democrats had a lock on 248 electoral votes and the Republicans had a lock on 93. But contrast 1976 with 1992 and the political norms were very different. California, Illinois, Michigan, and Pennsylvania usually voted Republican in Presidential elections -- in all but Democratic landslides in then-recent years; Texas and other southern states (except Virginia) usually went Democratic.

Republican nominees won three landslide elections in succession (1980, 1984, and 1988), and while Republicans thought that they had a lock on the White House, America changed. The Democrats got better organized, and instead of coming up with some d@mnyankee liberal they got Bill Clinton -- Jimmy Carter with practicality. His VP Al Gore became too much of a d@mnyankee liberal to win against a candidate who could play upon the sentiments of the Religious Right and attract the campaign contributions of well-heeled tycoons and executives in unprecedented amounts (George W. Bush) -- and John Kerry, a d@mnyankee liberal politician if there ever was one and an ineffective campaigner, did worse. Kerry couldn't win any state without a seashore or a  lakeshore (in case you give Vermont as an exception, its shore on Lake Champlain is longer than Pennsylvania's on Lake Erie and about as long as Illinois' shore on Lake Michigan) and he couldn't win anything south of the Potomac or any state between the Sierra Nevada and the Mississippi except Minnesota.

Barack Obama is the most effective campaigner since at least Ronald Reagan. That explains his win, but even he was able to pick up only two states that hadn't voted for a Democratic nominee since at least 1976 (VA, IN) and lost by double-digit margins some of the states that Clinton could win as a Southern moderate populist (AR, LA, TN, KY, WV, GA)

A map:

Note well that this is not a prediction of how any state will vote in 2016 or any subsequent election!



deep red: the hard core of the Democratic block, difficult to dislodge except by an extremely-strong Republican candidate (Ronald Reagan) or a Favorite Son in a specific state. Democratic nominees won these states in every election from 1992 to 2008.

248 electoral votes. 

red: states that the Republican nominee can pick off if very effective, having done so once in the last five presidential elections; Dubya picked off one of them in 2000 (NH) and two in 2004 (IA, NM). Wisconsin came close to one of the Dubya pick-offs in 2004, but it doesn't count here. I need some rules to keep from creating fuzziness in thought and expression.
 
16 electoral votes.

dark green: Both states that voted for the winner every time (NV and OH). Clinton and Obama got them each time; Gore would have won had he picked off any one of them;  Kerry would have won had he won Ohio. A Republican nominee who picks both of these States, essentially middle-of-the road states throughout the period 1992-2008, almost certainly wins. 

25 electoral votes.

light green: Possible wins for a Democrat, but only a populist and moderate Southerner (Carter, Clinton). Obama got clobbered in these states that Clinton won at least once. D@mnyankees have always had political difficulties in those states, whether Democrats or Republicans, since Strom Thurmond turned against Harry Truman in 1948. Obama will NOT win these states except in an electoral blowout.  (AR, GA, KY, LA, TN, WV)

62 electoral votes.

pale blue or medium blue (really, there's no pale blue available in the color selection, so I'll have to compromise with teal): These states voted Democratic twice and Republican three times. Democrats can win without Colorado, Florida, North Carolina, and Missouri; Republican nominees can't win without them. Except for Colorado (which of these states voted most decisively for Obama), they are prone to wins by third-party candidates on occasion. These are genuine swing states.

53 electoral votes.

blue -- states and NE-02 (Greater Omaha) that voted for the Republican nominees four of five times. These will be battleground states in 2012; Virginia is by far the likeliest win for Obama, who barely won Indiana and is likely to lose it in 2012 except in an electoral blowout. Arizona was a near-double-digit loss for Obama -- but only because the Republican nominee was from Arizona. Montana was close in 2008.

If there was any political realignment in American presidential politics, it was one state: Virginia.  Indiana is very iffy.

38 electoral votes.

deep blue -- the hard core of states (NE-02 excluded)  that have not voted for a Democratic nominee for President since at least 1976. In 1976, Texas, Mississippi, Alabama, and South Carolina last voted for the Democratic candidate for President (Jimmy Carter). Except in the Dakotas and NE-01, Obama was absolutely crushed in this block of states. In this area, only the Dakotas and NE-01 look like possible pickups for Obama.

Inverses of the states in deep red ,they now look on the whole as if they could be won by Democrats only by a strong candidate or if they have a Favorite Son running from them.

93 electoral votes.

Do you see a realignment? I certainly don't!  All candidates have their regional strengths and weaknesses, and those strengths and weaknesses (including Favorite Son effects) can make the difference in some states.  Only after America changes after two or three electoral blowouts can one speak of a realignment in American politics.

Will there be a realignment in 2016? Should Obama pick off Texas and lose California, then we will have seen a realignment. If Obama should pick off Texas due to demographic shifts or lose California due to political failure, then we will simply see a landslide election. 


 

[Antonio the Sixth]

When making election predictions, don't we always follow every electoral map since 1992? Think about it: between 1968 through 1988 the Republicans always won the presidential elections by landslides (except for '76 because Carter was from the South and even then it was the only close race).

After 1992, President Clinton has strengthened the liberal movement and made the country pretty evenly divided between liberals and conservatives. Before Clinton, the country was pretty far to the right. Now the country is completely divided and polarized.

What do you think?

I don't think so : 1992 was a technical swing after 12 years of republican government : it could be compared to 1952 election : it was a very different map than 1948, but didn't change ideologies. Clinton is a moderate - as Eisenhower was - he is certainly not a liberal who revolutioned political ideas.
And don't forget that, in 1992 as in 1996, there was a strong third-party candidate who took many republican votes. So you can explain Clinton's "landslide" in Electoral College.

[TeePee4Prez]

Well certain states that hardly ever voted Democratic went Democratic for the first time like California, Vermont, Connecticut, New Jersey, Maine, Delaware, New Hampshire and seem to have stuck that way. Which is somewhat realigning, I suppose. 

I think many of the trends that manifested itself were slowly getting their start in 1992 with NoVA, Bay Area burbs, Philly burbs, So. FL becoming more and more D.

The Southern eV's were totally won on personal appeal however.

The Phila 'burbs went Republican for House, Senate, and Governor in 1994, and for Governor and Senate in 1998, with the House seat that flipped being close.

On the Presidential level, you have no argument.  Usually this is where realignments start.

1994 was well 1994.  Margolies-Mezvinsky didn't lose by much and Joe Hoeffel barely lost in 1996.  Ridge was also a liberal Republican. 

1998 Senate-  Bad argument.  Specter also won the suburbs in 2004.  Again, Liberal Republican.

The GOP still has remnant power to this day.  The Montco Commish race was disappointing for us in 2007, but if Castor wasn't on the ticket, I think the Dems would have both seats.  A lot of the State House/Senate seats are still GOP, but mind you they are far more liberal than the national average for the most part. 

[pbrower2a]

The real realignment occurred during the Reagan/Bush years. Before 1980 some states (Texas, South Carolina, Mississippi, and Alabama) usually voted for Democratic nominees for President and some states (PA, MI, IL, CA) usually voted for Republican nominees; beginning in 1992 that was inverted. The once-powerful liberal wing of the GOP began to die off in the North and west as the Republicans took over in the South. Right-wingers rode the "Reagan Revolution" in the North and West until liberals caught on -- and started voting for Democrats. In the South, white Democrats steadily abandoned the Democratic Party in favor of the GOP. A political party staring at the prospect of becoming an impotent party of a permanent minority reorganizes itself, and tries to find and exploit ideological splits between conflicting interests within the dominant Party. The Democrats did exactly that between 1980 and 1992... and succeeded; such was a realignment. 

In 1976, Northerners showed that they would not vote for a southern moderate populist like Jimmy Carter, and given a second chance to do so in 1980, didn't. In 1992 they voted for Bill Clinton, and did so also in 1996. In 1976 Carter won the South -- and lost it due in part to bad luck, but also due to the rise of the Religious Right that adopted Ronald Reagan as one of theirs. In 1992 and 1996 Clinton split the South. The 1992 and 1996 elections show that a southern moderate populist can split the white vote and win an overwhelming majority of the black vote  to win statewide elections for Governorships and Senate seats.

In 2000 George W. Bush offered an ostensibly-moderate image that belied the Hard Right character of his ideology. The North and Far West generally rejected his agrarian-Christian fundamentalist-corporatist appeals, but enough of America went consistently for it that he could win re-election in 2004 against a former Tennessee Senator who had made too many compromises with liberalism for white Southern tastes and against a very liberal US Senator from Massachusetts.  Between 1992 and 2004, Democrats consistently won 247 of the electoral votes necessary for outright victory in the Electoral College from the same states and the District of Columbia; in 2000  they got only 17 more electoral votes, and in 2004 only 4 more.

In 2008, the Obama campaign began with an effort to consolidate support in States deemed certain to vote for the Democratic nominee (comprising the same 247 electoral votes that had voted for the Democratic nominee every time since 1996; all of those States and the District of Columbia voted by 10+% margins for Obama) and twenty-one electoral votes from States that had voted for Dubya once (Obama got 9% or higher percentages of the vote in those states). The strategy was simple: Gore'00+NH = Kerry'04+IA+NM = 264; add five electoral votes by any means and win (because state Congressional delegations would decide the election to the advantage of Obama). There were plenty of targets scattered across the country: Nevada (5), Colorado (9), Missouri (11), Indiana (11), Ohio (20), Virginia (11), North Carolina (15), and Florida (27), all of which would decide the election.  The Republicans had to defend every one of them. We know the result.

Obama got crushed in a bunch of states that Clinton won at least once -- demonstrating that Barack Obama was definitely not Bill Clinton and was unable to win the states that a Southern moderate populist could win. Who runs still matters, hardly demonstrating that there was a realignment in politics. Obama won three Southern states, though -- Virginia and North Carolina (which Clinton had never won) and Florida, which is Southern in the sense that Hawaii is southern -- only in latitude.  Realignment implies that some states that used to be reliable for one Party have become reliable for another. Could someone like Bill Clinton have won much as Obama did? Probably not; he would have won a different set of States.   

[Antonio the Sixth]

The real realignment occurred during the Reagan/Bush years. Before 1980 some states (Texas, South Carolina, Mississippi, and Alabama) usually voted for Democratic nominees for President and some states (PA, MI, IL, CA) usually voted for Republican nominees; beginning in 1992 that was inverted. The once-powerful liberal wing of the GOP began to die off in the North and west as the Republicans took over in the South. Right-wingers rode the "Reagan Revolution" in the North and West until liberals caught on -- and started voting for Democrats. In the South, white Democrats steadily abandoned the Democratic Party in favor of the GOP. A political party staring at the prospect of becoming an impotent party of a permanent minority reorganizes itself, and tries to find and exploit ideological splits between conflicting interests within the dominant Party. The Democrats did exactly that between 1980 and 1992... and succeeded; such was a realignment. 

In 1976, Northerners showed that they would not vote for a southern moderate populist like Jimmy Carter, and given a second chance to do so in 1980, didn't. In 1992 they voted for Bill Clinton, and did so also in 1996. In 1976 Carter won the South -- and lost it due in part to bad luck, but also due to the rise of the Religious Right that adopted Ronald Reagan as one of theirs. In 1992 and 1996 Clinton split the South. The 1992 and 1996 elections show that a southern moderate populist can split the white vote and win an overwhelming majority of the black vote  to win statewide elections for Governorships and Senate seats.

In 2000 George W. Bush offered an ostensibly-moderate image that belied the Hard Right character of his ideology. The North and Far West generally rejected his agrarian-Christian fundamentalist-corporatist appeals, but enough of America went consistently for it that he could win re-election in 2004 against a former Tennessee Senator who had made too many compromises with liberalism for white Southern tastes and against a very liberal US Senator from Massachusetts.  Between 1992 and 2004, Democrats consistently won 247 of the electoral votes necessary for outright victory in the Electoral College from the same states and the District of Columbia; in 2000  they got only 17 more electoral votes, and in 2004 only 4 more.

In 2008, the Obama campaign began with an effort to consolidate support in States deemed certain to vote for the Democratic nominee (comprising the same 247 electoral votes that had voted for the Democratic nominee every time since 1996; all of those States and the District of Columbia voted by 10+% margins for Obama) and twenty-one electoral votes from States that had voted for Dubya once (Obama got 9% or higher percentages of the vote in those states). The strategy was simple: Gore'00+NH = Kerry'04+IA+NM = 264; add five electoral votes by any means and win (because state Congressional delegations would decide the election to the advantage of Obama). There were plenty of targets scattered across the country: Nevada (5), Colorado (9), Missouri (11), Indiana (11), Ohio (20), Virginia (11), North Carolina (15), and Florida (27), all of which would decide the election.  The Republicans had to defend every one of them. We know the result.

Obama got crushed in a bunch of states that Clinton won at least once -- demonstrating that Barack Obama was definitely not Bill Clinton and was unable to win the states that a Southern moderate populist could win. Who runs still matters, hardly demonstrating that there was a realignment in politics. Obama won three Southern states, though -- Virginia and North Carolina (which Clinton had never won) and Florida, which is Southern in the sense that Hawaii is southern -- only in latitude.  Realignment implies that some states that used to be reliable for one Party have become reliable for another. Could someone like Bill Clinton have won much as Obama did? Probably not; he would have won a different set of States.   

Very good analysis.

[Applezz]

The real realignment occurred during the Reagan/Bush years. Before 1980 some states (Texas, South Carolina, Mississippi, and Alabama) usually voted for Democratic nominees for President and some states (PA, MI, IL, CA) usually voted for Republican nominees; beginning in 1992 that was inverted. The once-powerful liberal wing of the GOP began to die off in the North and west as the Republicans took over in the South. Right-wingers rode the "Reagan Revolution" in the North and West until liberals caught on -- and started voting for Democrats. In the South, white Democrats steadily abandoned the Democratic Party in favor of the GOP. A political party staring at the prospect of becoming an impotent party of a permanent minority reorganizes itself, and tries to find and exploit ideological splits between conflicting interests within the dominant Party. The Democrats did exactly that between 1980 and 1992... and succeeded; such was a realignment. 

In 1976, Northerners showed that they would not vote for a southern moderate populist like Jimmy Carter, and given a second chance to do so in 1980, didn't. In 1992 they voted for Bill Clinton, and did so also in 1996. In 1976 Carter won the South -- and lost it due in part to bad luck, but also due to the rise of the Religious Right that adopted Ronald Reagan as one of theirs. In 1992 and 1996 Clinton split the South. The 1992 and 1996 elections show that a southern moderate populist can split the white vote and win an overwhelming majority of the black vote  to win statewide elections for Governorships and Senate seats.

In 2000 George W. Bush offered an ostensibly-moderate image that belied the Hard Right character of his ideology. The North and Far West generally rejected his agrarian-Christian fundamentalist-corporatist appeals, but enough of America went consistently for it that he could win re-election in 2004 against a former Tennessee Senator who had made too many compromises with liberalism for white Southern tastes and against a very liberal US Senator from Massachusetts.  Between 1992 and 2004, Democrats consistently won 247 of the electoral votes necessary for outright victory in the Electoral College from the same states and the District of Columbia; in 2000  they got only 17 more electoral votes, and in 2004 only 4 more.

In 2008, the Obama campaign began with an effort to consolidate support in States deemed certain to vote for the Democratic nominee (comprising the same 247 electoral votes that had voted for the Democratic nominee every time since 1996; all of those States and the District of Columbia voted by 10+% margins for Obama) and twenty-one electoral votes from States that had voted for Dubya once (Obama got 9% or higher percentages of the vote in those states). The strategy was simple: Gore'00+NH = Kerry'04+IA+NM = 264; add five electoral votes by any means and win (because state Congressional delegations would decide the election to the advantage of Obama). There were plenty of targets scattered across the country: Nevada (5), Colorado (9), Missouri (11), Indiana (11), Ohio (20), Virginia (11), North Carolina (15), and Florida (27), all of which would decide the election.  The Republicans had to defend every one of them. We know the result.

Obama got crushed in a bunch of states that Clinton won at least once -- demonstrating that Barack Obama was definitely not Bill Clinton and was unable to win the states that a Southern moderate populist could win. Who runs still matters, hardly demonstrating that there was a realignment in politics. Obama won three Southern states, though -- Virginia and North Carolina (which Clinton had never won) and Florida, which is Southern in the sense that Hawaii is southern -- only in latitude.  Realignment implies that some states that used to be reliable for one Party have become reliable for another. Could someone like Bill Clinton have won much as Obama did? Probably not; he would have won a different set of States.  

I don't think you understand my theory. Yes, Obama and Clinton won different states but that's totally irrelevent. The point is between 1968-1988 Republicans won every election by a landslide except in 1976. Clinton proved that Democrats can still win big and realigned the country and STARTED the extreme polarization. It lead the way into the 2000 election and then 2008 because the country was shifting dramatically since 92. Yes I understand Ross Perot was a factor. But all the major hardcore democratic states like California, New York, Mass, New Jersey, Oregon, Washington, etc. really started to consistently vote Democrat since 1992. Think about it: Republicans never were able to win California after 1992. In the era of Republican Domination (68-88) their were no Red State Blue State divide.

Bill Clinton not only won but became a successful president and built a strong base. But Republicans still had a strong base despite that. That's why the 1994 Republican Rev. was sooo important to my theory. The early 90s elections started the extreme divide. That's what lead to the 2000 election. The era of Divide began in 1992 and ended the Republican era between 1968-1988

Even if you disagree with everything I said in my theory: you must agree that today's politics are very different then the politics from 68-88.

Does anyone agree?

[bullmoose88]

Since when was 1968 a landslide?

[Rob]

Since when was 1968 a landslide?

It's a "landslide" if you want to combine the votes for racist candidates (57%, iirc), but of course not all Wallace voters would have chosen Nixon in a two-way race. Outside the old Confederacy, Wallace probably hurt Humphrey more than Nixon.

[War on Want]

Since when was 1968 a landslide?

It's a "landslide" if you want to combine the votes for racist candidates (57%, iirc), but of course not all Wallace voters would have chosen Nixon in a two-way race. Outside the old Confederacy, Wallace probably hurt Humphrey more than Nixon.

I have to disagree, in the West Wallace definitley took more votes away from Nixon.

[Rob]

I have to disagree, in the West Wallace definitley took more votes away from Nixon.

Definitely in the interior West, but not so much in the industrial Midwest and Northeast. Out west, Wallace's best showings were in working-class areas that haven't been competitive for national Democrats since the 1960s; most of Wallace's voters in these areas, almost certainly, ended up voting for Nixon (or Schmitz!) in 1972 and (with the possible exception of 1976) for Republicans since.
 
But in the critical states of the industralized Midwest and Northeast, Wallace ran best among unionized working-class voters. I think that's the key difference, and indeed it was widely noticed that as Wallace fell in the polls in Michigan, for example, Humphrey rose- and ended up carrying the state thanks to his union support. A straight Nixon-Humphrey race would probably mean Democratic victories in Wisconsin, Illinois, Ohio, and New Jersey.

[pbrower2a]

The real realignment occurred during the Reagan/Bush years. Before 1980 some states (Texas, South Carolina, Mississippi, and Alabama) usually voted for Democratic nominees for President and some states (PA, MI, IL, CA) usually voted for Republican nominees; beginning in 1992 that was inverted. The once-powerful liberal wing of the GOP began to die off in the North and west as the Republicans took over in the South. Right-wingers rode the "Reagan Revolution" in the North and West until liberals caught on -- and started voting for Democrats. In the South, white Democrats steadily abandoned the Democratic Party in favor of the GOP. A political party staring at the prospect of becoming an impotent party of a permanent minority reorganizes itself, and tries to find and exploit ideological splits between conflicting interests within the dominant Party. The Democrats did exactly that between 1980 and 1992... and succeeded; such was a realignment. 

In 1976, Northerners showed that they would not vote for a southern moderate populist like Jimmy Carter, and given a second chance to do so in 1980, didn't. In 1992 they voted for Bill Clinton, and did so also in 1996. In 1976 Carter won the South -- and lost it due in part to bad luck, but also due to the rise of the Religious Right that adopted Ronald Reagan as one of theirs. In 1992 and 1996 Clinton split the South. The 1992 and 1996 elections show that a southern moderate populist can split the white vote and win an overwhelming majority of the black vote  to win statewide elections for Governorships and Senate seats.
(cut for length)

  

I don't think you understand my theory. Yes, Obama and Clinton won different states but that's totally irrelevent. The point is between 1968-1988 Republicans won every election by a landslide except in 1976. Clinton proved that Democrats can still win big and realigned the country and STARTED the extreme polarization. It lead the way into the 2000 election and then 2008 because the country was shifting dramatically since 92. Yes I understand Ross Perot was a factor. But all the major hardcore democratic states like California, New York, Mass, New Jersey, Oregon, Washington, etc. really started to consistently vote Democrat since 1992. Think about it: Republicans never were able to win California after 1992. In the era of Republican Domination (68-88) their were no Red State Blue State divide.

Bill Clinton not only won but became a successful president and built a strong base. But Republicans still had a strong base despite that. That's why the 1994 Republican Rev. was sooo important to my theory. The early 90s elections started the extreme divide. That's what lead to the 2000 election. The era of Divide began in 1992 and ended the Republican era between 1968-1988

Even if you disagree with everything I said in my theory: you must agree that today's politics are very different then the politics from 68-88.

Does anyone agree?

1. One salient feature of the 2008 Presidential election after the fact was that of electoral votes assigned to the winners, 248 (not allowing for reapportionment) had not gone for Republican nominees in five consecutive elections, and 95 had not gone for any Democratic nominee. Wholly 343 of 538 electoral votes, or 63% of all electoral votes were effectively decided before they were cast in any Presidential election, and 379  (70%) were decided by margins less than 10%.   

States largely steady in their partisan loyalties, and a Blue-Red divide as sharply delimited as it could ever be -- such indicates a certain level of partisan stability in some places. All states and the District of Columbia that had always voted for the Democratic nominee for President between 1992 and 2008 did so by margins of 10% or greater. That itself suggests two things:

• A. That the hard-core Blue States were likely on the whole to vote for any Democrat irrespective of ethnicity or region and not for any Republican for President. These states voted for Clinton, Gore, Kerry, and Obama.  So long as the Republican Party latches onto the Hard Right, the Blue Firewall (red in Leip's maps) the Republican Party can automatically write off 248 electoral votes.
  
  B. The pattern set in 1992 (if one ignores the states that Clinton could win but Obama has yet to win) has only intensified. There seems to have been no large-scale, indelible realignment since 1992.

2. Presidential politics depends in all times upon the building of coalitions. It's a poor idea to offend the sensibilities of 46% of the electorate unless one has doubts only of how 3% of the rest of the electoral vote. In 2000 and 2004 Dubya (with appropriate credit granted to Karl Rove and his "majority of a majority" practice) got away with that masterfully. Rove put together a coalition of corporatists, militarists, agrarian elitists, and religious fundamentalists to get a workable majority. Then Rove effectively operated the system with the aid of House and Senate stooges who cut the Democrats out of the debates.  By 2008 "Blue America" was sick of that scheme and had started to woo away disgruntled Republicans and independents.

(It also helped the Democrats in 2008  that the Religious Right was shrinking as it aged without replacement by youth who now seem to reject it).   

3. It is evident that the Red-Blue divide in between 1960 and 1976was far less than what exists today. From 1980 to 1988, with three consecutive GOP blowouts, the Red-Blue divide seems to have been well hidden.  Note well in 1988 that Dukakis lost a bunch of states (Vermont, Connecticut, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Illinois, New Mexico, and California) that would eventually form the "Blue firewall". Dukakis was absolutely crushed in the former Confederate states. Someone who looked at the trends underlying the victory of the elder Bush might have seen a new pattern forming -- a pattern that would allow the next Democratic President to be elected.

4. It's possible to interpret the difference between the 1992/1996 elections and the Obama election and  see either (1) some regions of the country tending Republican and some tending Democratic, or (2) that who runs can determine not only whether a Democratic victory is possible and how. Since 1964, no Democratic nominee from outside the South had won the Presidency. That common wisdom was refuted in 2008. Without the Blue Firewall a Democratic nominee must make significant wins in the South. Obama won Virginia, North Carolina, and Florida, but would have won without them. Bill Clinton had electoral results very similar in the count of electoral votes in 1992 and 1996 -- and Obama got a similar number of electoral votes in 2008. Clinton had no chance to win Indiana, but Obama had no chance of winning Tennessee.

5. For good or ill -- and it will eventually bring ill -- we no longer can expect genuine national campaigns. Presidential campaigns can now look at polls and see where efforts are useful (Ohio is within the margin of error) or where they are either futile (one is behind by a huge margin in California or ahead by a huge margin in Texas). So it will be with television and billboard advertising and with campaign appearances. Except for gross blunders or catastrophic events,  large gaps in support are unlikely to erode in the two or three months between party conventions and Election Day. That is unlikely to change until the next series of landslide elections. Somebody might yet master Karl Rove's "majority of a majority" practice well enough to ensure an impotent opposition, establish practices that ensure that the opposition has no chance of winning adequate support in Congress, and put a reliable puppet in place as President -- and make it stick. Steadily the opposition erodes, capable of making stirring 2AM speeches on C-Span but unable to convince the ruling Party. Democracy in America could then become as much of a sham as it was in the old German Democratic Republic (East Germany), which consistently had a large opposition relegated to irrelevance.   

[Applezz]

Since when was 1968 a landslide?

It was actually a landslide. Nixon had a southern strategy. But it didn't work since the third party candidate Wallace split the southern vote. All of the Wallace voters defintely would've voted for Nixon.

Nixon/Wallace-499 EV 57%
Humphrey-39 EV 43%

[Meeker]

Since when was 1968 a landslide?

It was actually a landslide. Nixon had a southern strategy. But it didn't work since the third party candidate Wallace split the southern vote. All of the Wallace voters defintely would've voted for Nixon.

Nixon/Wallace-499 EV 57%
Humphrey-39 EV 43%

lol

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Since when was 1968 a landslide?

It was actually a landslide. Nixon had a southern strategy. But it didn't work since the third party candidate Wallace split the southern vote. All of the Wallace voters defintely would've voted for Nixon.

Nixon/Wallace-499 EV 57%
Humphrey-39 EV 43%

LOL.  Just LOL.

[pbrower2a]

Really this is an addition to an existing post:

6. The only evidence of realignment in 2008 was that 40 electoral votes that had never gone to Democratic nominees since at least 1976 (NC) or even 1964 (IN, VA, NE-02) went to a Democrat.  With the possible exception of NE-02 (lack of evidence) those were huge swings. Virginia and North Carolina swung by about 15%, and Indiana had to set something close to a record with a 21% swing.  Take a good look at Montana, which made a similar swing:

Let's see how the states voted for the Democratic nominees between 2000 and 2008 (1992 and 1996 results are tainted by the Perot third-party vote):

                            2000               2004              2008

IN                         41.0                39.3               49.9

MT                        33.4                38.6                47.2  
 
NC                        43.2                43.6               49.7

VA                         44.4                45.5               52.6

swing states:

CO                         42.4              47.0               53.7

FL                          48.8               47.1              50.1          

IA                          48.5               49.2               53.1

MO                         47.1              46.1               49.3

NH                         46.8               48.9               54.1

NV                          49.5              47.9               55.1

NM                         47.9               49.0               56.9

OH                         46.5               48.7               51.4

WI                         47.8               49.7               56.2

National                 47.9               48.3               52.9

Neither Indiana, North Carolina, nor Virginia became more Democratic than the US as a whole, and Montana never has voted for the Democratic nominee since 1992. They show huge shifts with respect to the national norm, Indiana having gone from nearly 7% less Democratic than the nation as a whole to about 3% less Democratic than the nation as a whole between 2000 and 2008. North Carolina went  from 4.7% less Democratic to 2.2% less Democratic. Virginia went from 3.5% less Democratic to 0.3% less Democratic.

This change is much larger than the pattern in any states conventionally described as swing states except in NV, NM, and WI (I have considered MO and WI "swing states" because they were close in some of the elections.

In none of these states is there a favorite son candidate to swing an election a few points.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Mystical bullshit all of it. Bah.

[pbrower2a]

Since when was 1968 a landslide?

It was actually a landslide. Nixon had a southern strategy. But it didn't work since the third party candidate Wallace split the southern vote. All of the Wallace voters defintely would've voted for Nixon.

Nixon/Wallace-499 EV 57%
Humphrey-39 EV 43%

Demonstration:

Add the Clinton and Perot voters in 1992 and you get:

Clinton/Perot          531
Bush                             7

Add those for GHWB and Perot, and you get:

Clinton                                 42
Bush/Perot                       286  
Maryland (virtual tie)        10 (Who cares at this point?)

Such is the potential danger of adding the votes of third-party candidates to those of the main two candidates when the votes of the third party candidate are significant.

[Applezz]

Since when was 1968 a landslide?

It was actually a landslide. Nixon had a southern strategy. But it didn't work since the third party candidate Wallace split the southern vote. All of the Wallace voters defintely would've voted for Nixon.

Nixon/Wallace-499 EV 57%
Humphrey-39 EV 43%

Demonstration:

Add the Clinton and Perot voters in 1992 and you get:

Clinton/Perot          531
Bush                             7

Add those for GHWB and Perot, and you get:

Clinton                                 42
Bush/Perot                       286  
Maryland (virtual tie)        10 (Who cares at this point?)

Such is the potential danger of adding the votes of third-party candidates to those of the main two candidates when the votes of the third party candidate are significant.

You don't freakin get it. The Ross Perot voters would've split between Clinton and HW Bush. The Wallace voters would've went to Nixon because if you actually understand what happened in 1968 election, Wallace appealed to the white racist voters. A good majority of those voters would've voted for Nixon. Remember the southern strategy I mentioned? Modern day Republicans always win the southern states because of the white voters. Nixon began that strategy. There is no question that Nixon would've won all the southern states with over 60 or even 70% of the vote. Don't forget, Wallace was from Alabama (one of the most conservative states in the country today). And for the record, Nixon won the next electon by a landslide. Also, Humphrey's wins in Minnesota, Massachusetts, Hawaii, and Delaware only make sense considering those are hard core liberal states today.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

You don't freakin get it.

No, you don't get it.  Outside of the Deep South, Wallace got his support from Labor, blue collar workers, immigrants, etc.  These groups were always strong backers of Hubert Humphrey.  They would have gone in large numbers to Humphrey, swinging multiple states.  In the South, these voters would have gone slightly to Nixon, maybe 40/30, with the remaining 30% or so just staying home.  You're attempting to relate anything in 1968 with 2008 is foolish, and makes little sense.  The states have changed drastically over the last 40 years, and saying that a state voted someway in 1968 because it is liberal/conservative now is just pointless.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

HHH would have need just 4% or so of Wallace's voters to hit 50% in West Virginia. I mention this by way of example.

[pbrower2a]

Since when was 1968 a landslide?

It was actually a landslide. Nixon had a southern strategy. But it didn't work since the third party candidate Wallace split the southern vote. All of the Wallace voters defintely would've voted for Nixon.

Demonstration:

Add the Clinton and Perot voters in 1992 and you get:

Clinton/Perot          531
Bush                             7

Add those for GHWB and Perot, and you get:

Clinton                                 42
Bush/Perot                       286  
Maryland (virtual tie)        10 (Who cares at this point?)

Such is the potential danger of adding the votes of third-party candidates to those of the main two candidates when the votes of the third party candidate are significant.

You don't freakin get it. The Ross Perot voters would've split between Clinton and HW Bush. The Wallace voters would've went to Nixon because if you actually understand what happened in 1968 election, Wallace appealed to the white racist voters. A good majority of those voters would've voted for Nixon. Remember the southern strategy I mentioned? Modern day Republicans always win the southern states because of the white voters. Nixon began that strategy. There is no question that Nixon would've won all the southern states with over 60 or even 70% of the vote. Don't forget, Wallace was from Alabama (one of the most conservative states in the country today). And for the record, Nixon won the next electon by a landslide. Also, Humphrey's wins in Minnesota, Massachusetts, Hawaii, and Delaware only make sense considering those are hard core liberal states today.

Oh, yes -- I got it. I just didn't show the reality of the 1992 election,

Clinton (D)            370      
Bush (R)               188
Perot (Reform)         0



I thought that I showed what one gets by adding third-party votes to those of one of the two main parties. Reality in 1992 was, of course, what happened (which I did not show; consider the effort necessary for the absurd maps that I created to demonstrate, and it took me considerable time): all votes for Perot were effectively wasted as one would expect with a third-party candidate running a nationwide campaign. Such might not have been so with Thurmond '48 or Wallace '64. The maps that I showed for Clinton+Perot versus Bush and Bush+Perot versus Clinton should demonstrate that. George Herbert Walker Bush was not the sort of President who should have been defeated by a 531-7 divide in electoral votes, and Clinton wasn't going to win only 42 or 52 electoral votes as a challenger.

I can suggest that a candidate on the Right and not a fascist (neither Wallace in 1968 nor Thurmond in 1948 was a fascist) likely takes votes away from Republicans; a candidate on the Left and not a commie likely takes votes away from a Democrat in most years. Thus I can state that McCain probably lost North Carolina by the margin smaller than the number of votes that Bob Barr (Libertarian) won in North Carolina, and Obama lost Missouri by a margin less than the difference between votes of Ralph Nader (left-wing Independent) and Bob Barr. Barr can be assumed to take very few votes away from Obama but more from  McCain, and the inverse with Ralph Nader. The US Presidential elections were that close in North Carolina and Missouri. (Indiana? Not so close). Someone operating in the middle, like Perot Roosevelt in 1992, takes votes from the two main candidates.

I recognize the reality of 1992: Perot, running as a non-extremist, picked off votes from both Bush and Clinton.

[RIP Robert H Bork]

Oh, yes -- I got it. I just didn't show the reality of the 1992 election,

Clinton (D)            370      
Bush (R)               188
Perot (Reform)         0

That was not the "reality" of the 1992 election at all. The right map is this: