Wasn't 1992 a realigning election?

[Derek]

It's hard to say because Clinton won big as far as electoral votes. Before that Reagan and Bush won big. It's hard to see the changes between 1976 and 2000. It looks like it if you consider MT and CO, but Dukakis of all ppl was actually competitive in the Dakotas and Montana.

[Bo]

No, since they did not produce a permanent Democratic majority in Congress and did not solidify Democratic control of the Presidency. If 1992 was a true realignment, then the Democras would have retained Congress throughout the 1990s and Gore would have won in 2000 after Clinton won twice.

[Derek]

By realignment I was thinking of how some states began to vote in 1992 compared to the past.

Vermont- reliably Republican until 1992 and since has been far left
California- red/purple until 1992 and since has been heavily democrat
Maine- reliably Republican until 1992 and since has been heavily democrat
Alabama- reliably Democrat except for landslides and since has been heavily Republican
Mississippi- reliably Democrat except for landslides and since has been heavily Republican
Georgia- I know I know it voted for Clinton but look at it from then on compared to before
Texas- although Bush's home state had long been a purple/Democrat state but not since then

[cpeeks]

um Alabama has only went for a democrat once since 1964, and that was for Carter in 1976.

[Derek]

yes but it was close for Carter in 1980 and Wallace won it in 1968. So basically it only voted for Nixon in 1972 in the decades leading up to the 80's and in the 80's just about every state voted Republican.

[cpeeks]

If Wallace hadnt have ran in 1968 Nixon would have won going away, no way Alabama would have voted for the father of the civil rights movement. And Carter not only being a son of the south, was very religious which helped him here. Clinton came the closest to carry Alabama than anyone else has besides Carter and he lost by 6 points.

[they don't love you like i love you]

There is no such thing as "realigning elections". Philip did a good job demolishing that idiotic theory.

[Derek]

That's true ^^. It's states that define elections, not elections that define states.

[cpeeks]

Realigning election (often called a "critical election") or political realignment are terms from political science and political history describing a dramatic change in the political system. Scholars frequently apply the term to American elections and occasionally to other countries. Usually it means the coming to power of a new coalition, replacing an old dominant coalition of the other party (or replacing a stalemate, as in the United States in 1896 or 1932). Realignment may center on a critical election or be spread among several elections. More specifically, it often refers to American national elections in which there are sharp changes in issues, party leaders, the regional and demographic bases of power of the two parties, and structure or rules of the political system (such as voter eligibility or financing), resulting in a new political power structure.

[Derek]

that takes time and it's hard to pinponit any particular elections for that tho

[J. J.]

No, especially considering the GOP gained in the House.

[Derek]

ru sure?

[J. J.]

ru sure?

Yes, the low point was in 1990, when the GOP had 167 seats.  In 1992, it was up to 176.

[Derek]

hmm interesting but I take your word for it. we lost one in the senate in 1992 I think.

[cpeeks]

the gop took over in 94 not 92

[Derek]

he's saying the GOP picked up seats in 1992 tho

[J. J.]

hmm interesting but I take your word for it. we lost one in the senate in 1992 I think.

We may have, but the GOP gained 9 House seats in 1992.

[Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey]

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.

Hmm...I was always under the impression that most of those labor, blue collar workers would've gone to Nixon without Wallace in the picture. I understand that they were Democrats, but they were socially conservative, and I think without Wallace, Nixon's law-and-order platform would've been appealing to them, especially during the turmoil of the sixties. I'm not saying that all Wallace voters would've gone toward Nixon, but I think a majority of them would have.

[Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey]

Wow. With the exception of cpeeks, this page is dominated by PA Republicans.

[Derek]

1968- silent majority baby!

[phk]

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.

Hmm...I was always under the impression that most of those labor, blue collar workers would've gone to Nixon without Wallace in the picture. I understand that they were Democrats, but they were socially conservative, and I think without Wallace, Nixon's law-and-order platform would've been appealing to them, especially during the turmoil of the sixties. I'm not saying that all Wallace voters would've gone toward Nixon, but I think a majority of them would have.

[Mr.Phips]

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.

Hmm...I was always under the impression that most of those labor, blue collar workers would've gone to Nixon without Wallace in the picture. I understand that they were Democrats, but they were socially conservative, and I think without Wallace, Nixon's law-and-order platform would've been appealing to them, especially during the turmoil of the sixties. I'm not saying that all Wallace voters would've gone toward Nixon, but I think a majority of them would have.

Wallace voters split differently in different parts of the country.  For example, in Texas and in the rest of the South, the Wallace voters would have almost certainly went for Nixon.   On the other hand, in California and the upper Midwest, many Wallace voters would have gone for Humpherey. 

[Derek]

Comparing 1992 to 1996 is fairly informative.  The trends of Perot voters are informative, especially.  Arguably in 1996 Perot did disproportionately help Clinton; many of the observable swings towards him are left-leaning Perot voters coming home.

Plus Republicans had learned their lesson from 1992.

[cpeeks]

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.

Hmm...I was always under the impression that most of those labor, blue collar workers would've gone to Nixon without Wallace in the picture. I understand that they were Democrats, but they were socially conservative, and I think without Wallace, Nixon's law-and-order platform would've been appealing to them, especially during the turmoil of the sixties. I'm not saying that all Wallace voters would've gone toward Nixon, but I think a majority of them would have.

Wallace voters split differently in different parts of the country.  For example, in Texas and in the rest of the South, the Wallace voters would have almost certainly went for Nixon.   On the other hand, in California and the upper Midwest, many Wallace voters would have gone for Humpherey. 

Well I am not sure how many voters went to wallace in cali, but the midwest is alot like the south im sure those voters would have broke to wallace.

[redcommander]

No it was not. Part of the reason Republicans have done so poorly since 1992 in Presidential elections is because in 1996 Clinton was basically a shoo in without Powell running, in 2000 they nominated the wrong candidate whereas McCain, E. Dole, or getting one of the 1994ers elected to run/ be nominated would have resulted in a better win, and in 2004 and 2008 same situation, Wrong candidates were elected/nominated and came across as too partisan either due to their VP choice or policies. I could easily see a Republican win that is larger than Bush's 04 margin in 2012 if a stronger national ticket is nominated than usually.