Two Guesses

[Mr.Phips]

Missed the first one, but the second prediction still holds.  The congressional shift has not been enough to establish a re-alignment.  The state margins, in flipped states, was far too low to signal any permanent shifting.

Umm, no candidate won the Presidency and gained as many seats in the House and Senate since Reagan in 1980.  Before that it was LBJ in 1964.  In the so called "1968 realignment", Richard Nixon only won 43% of the popular vote and picked up just four House seats for his party and just five in the Senate. 

[Mr.Phips]

Alright let's see-- 1. He won by 50% and Obama won by 53%. 2. Carter simply was able to cobble up the last of the New Deal coalition for one final swoop and hurrah, Obama cobbled up an entirely new coalition. He won Hispanics by 30 points. He won 20-somethings by 30 points. This is big. The only reason McCain did so well was because he scored so high in the Sothern Highlands and Lower Mississippi.

Reagan only won his first  victory by 9 points. Obama won by 6 points. ...and Richard Nixon won by like 1 or 2 points, yet that was the beginning of the Republican Era of the late 20th century that may have just ended.

I don't see a new coalition here.  Obama was able to pull all of the Kerry states and add a few Bush states.  The credit crisis and subsequent market losses drove the national electorate away from the incumbent party, and the light-Bush states went to Obama.  Carter, on the other hand, was able to win something like twenty Nixon states in '76.

Obama would have probably won without the market losses.  It would just have been very, very narrow(likely Kerry state plus Colorado, Iowa, New Mexico, and Nevada). 

[Mr.Phips]

Alright let's see-- 1. He won by 50% and Obama won by 53%. 2. Carter simply was able to cobble up the last of the New Deal coalition for one final swoop and hurrah, Obama cobbled up an entirely new coalition. He won Hispanics by 30 points. He won 20-somethings by 30 points. This is big. The only reason McCain did so well was because he scored so high in the Sothern Highlands and Lower Mississippi.

George H. W. Bush won by a wider margin than Obama, but no realignment.

.

It was clearly a continuence of the realignment that started in 1980. 

[Mr.Phips]

Alright let's see-- 1. He won by 50% and Obama won by 53%. 2. Carter simply was able to cobble up the last of the New Deal coalition for one final swoop and hurrah, Obama cobbled up an entirely new coalition. He won Hispanics by 30 points. He won 20-somethings by 30 points. This is big. The only reason McCain did so well was because he scored so high in the Sothern Highlands and Lower Mississippi.

George H. W. Bush won by a wider margin than Obama, but no realignment.

.

It was clearly a continuence of the realignment that started in 1980. 

Arguably, this is the most progressive government in Washington in 44 years. There are only 2 truly center-right democrats in the Senate (Nelson and Casey) and only 20 in the house.

I meant that 1988 was a continuence of the 1980 realignment. 

[Mr.Phips]

Yes, but you would have to go back 30 years to see those type of numbers...and this is the second most dems in the senate per Congress since the Vietnam War. The Democratic Party is stronger today than anyother time after the fall of Saigon. We may be short a couple of dozen in the house, but when you subtract the PUMAs and DINOs, we are in a superior position.

Also, look at this map- This is the map of the 20-somethings- People don't change that much politically- it is possible that this map could be here by 2012, if not 2016 or 2020.

Actually, that is not correct; the Democratic numbers in the House are lower today than in 1989-93.  It might be lower than 1993-95, after everything is counted. 

They will likely be 259-176, which was the same margin they had from 1988 to 1990. 

[Mr.Phips]

Yes, but you would have to go back 30 years to see those type of numbers...and this is the second most dems in the senate per Congress since the Vietnam War. The Democratic Party is stronger today than anyother time after the fall of Saigon. We may be short a couple of dozen in the house, but when you subtract the PUMAs and DINOs, we are in a superior position.

Also, look at this map- This is the map of the 20-somethings- People don't change that much politically- it is possible that this map could be here by 2012, if not 2016 or 2020.

Actually, that is not correct; the Democratic numbers in the House are lower today than in 1989-93.  It might be lower than 1993-95, after everything is counted. 

They will likely be 259-176, which was the same margin they had from 1988 to 1990. 

Actually, the highest number that Democrats have had after the 1980 election was 260.  The lowest the GOP number was 167 (1991-93).  The numbers are still off the lows.  I could only get numbers on four races still out.  GOP leads in 3.

The lead they have in OH-15 is likely to be overturned.  Its only 146 votes and this is before the heavily Democratic provisional ballots are counted. 

[Mr.Phips]

...and I wasn't even born yet in 1980....and there were at least one independent, IIRC in 1990 elections. Also, this issue is moot because there were like 50 DINOs in the house before 1994, now there are 50. The democrats are now free of the Conservative Coalition.

And the Republicans are free of 40 or so RINO's or "Gypsy Moths" as they were then known.  We are still within the post re-alignment range.

There were never many Republican "Gypsy Moths". 

[Mr.Phips]

...and I wasn't even born yet in 1980....and there were at least one independent, IIRC in 1990 elections. Also, this issue is moot because there were like 50 DINOs in the house before 1994, now there are 50. The democrats are now free of the Conservative Coalition.

And the Republicans are free of 40 or so RINO's or "Gypsy Moths" as they were then known.  We are still within the post re-alignment range.

There were never many Republican "Gypsy Moths". 

They were enough to block many of the budget cuts Reagan proposed.  I would argue that there never were that many Bole Weevils either.

There were more Boll Weevils than Gypsy Moths.  I would argue that there still are about a dozen boll weevils in the South. 

[Mr.Phips]

...and I wasn't even born yet in 1980....and there were at least one independent, IIRC in 1990 elections. Also, this issue is moot because there were like 50 DINOs in the house before 1994, now there are 50. The democrats are now free of the Conservative Coalition.

And the Republicans are free of 40 or so RINO's or "Gypsy Moths" as they were then known.  We are still within the post re-alignment range.

In the Senate maybe.  I am thinking of Bob Stafford of Vermont, Lowell Weiker of Connecticut, and Charles Mathias of Maryland. 

There were never many Republican "Gypsy Moths". 

They were enough to block many of the budget cuts Reagan proposed.  I would argue that there never were that many Bole Weevils either.

There were more Boll Weevils than Gypsy Moths.  I would argue that there still are about a dozen boll weevils in the South. 

A lot of Moths were in the Senate, that made up for the numbers. 

[Mr.Phips]

2.  There were no coattails. 

The Democrats won every competitive Senate race plus a big upset in North Dakota.

As well as making gains in state legislatures outside the South.
 

That pretty much happens whenever a President is reelected. 

[Mr.Phips]

2.  There were no coattails. 

The Democrats won every competitive Senate race plus a big upset in North Dakota.

That was more due to the strength of their candidates, rather than Obama  In House races, if Obama had real coattails, Democrats probably would have taken back the chamber.