Realignment after all?

[Gustaf]

The basic realignement is the Northern wing of the Democrat party taking over the Democratic and subsequently pushing away the Southern Dixiecrats to the GOP. I think it might be useful to view it as 3 different parties (Republicans, Democrats and Dixiecrats). With the Republicans being the majority in the North the Democrats were for a long time reliant on winning at least some part of the Dixiecrat vote. The failure to do so resulted in the abysmal results 1968-1988, Carter being the exception. Recently we've only seen the realignement on the presidential level transfer to state and district levels. Considering that the Northeast, pacific and some of the big Midwestern states have been trending Democrat on the presidential level during the 90s there should actually be some hope for the Democrats once this trend starts to have an effect on the congressional level.

Finally, long-term, the Democrats SHOULD have an advantage in the House due to their strength in big states (just like the GOP should have in the senate)

[Gustaf]

It depends on your definition of realignement, I guess. But the switch of Southern Democrats from the Democratic to the Republican party is something I would define as a realignement. That begins in 1928 though, was reversed by FDR and then begun anew in 1948.

I agree that what we've seen lately is not much of change. While congress should start looking better for the Democrats once the full effect of the Democratic catch-up in the 90s on the presidential level sips through to the congress level the presidency is still pretty open, I'd say.

In the long term, btw, shouldn't Democratic strength in big states give them an advantage in the House? (given gerrymandering, primarily)

[Gustaf]

I know that, and it's the reason why I wrote long-term...Democrats shouldn't have both senators from North Dakota either, to give just one example. Does anyone know a site where I can easily find House stats?