Two Guesses

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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.

[J. J.]

Nor you this one.

[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.

[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).

[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.

[J. J.]

The possibility of a realignment was the first topic on The McLaughlin Group this morning, "Issue One."  Most didn't think so.

[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.

And, with the debt ceiling vote, we have just seen number 5.  Some initial polling seems to be showing number 1, but I'm going to withhold judgment on that one.

[J. J.]

Have you figured out what kind of policies, issues and voting blocs that will materialize afterwards?

Well, my guess now is a more fiscally conservative government.  The "litmus test" might be, how fiscally conservative is a candidate as opposed to a socially conservative.  I would not have said that in February of 2008.

I think there is about a 50/50 chance to see the end of racial politics.

[J. J.]

Have you figured out what kind of policies, issues and voting blocs that will materialize afterwards?

Well, my guess now is a more fiscally conservative government.  The "litmus test" might be, how fiscally conservative is a candidate as opposed to a socially conservative.  I would not have said that in February of 2008.

I think this very much is likely to be the result... people may even look back on Clinton as being conservative, since budgets under his presidency were in surplus.

I've already made the point, on this thread (I think), that possibly excepting Obama, all major party presidential nominees since 1988 (inclusive) were more conservative that the nominees in 1976.

[J. J.]

That could be a reasonable assement. Support for abortion rights have more or less stabilzed with a small majority favoring the status quo after a brief anti-abortion resurgence. Gay rights have become increasingly popular and there is a fair chance that racial politics might be ending as well though Hispanics are increasingly maligned against the conservatives. However, it is becoming impossible to raise taxes and any and all spending is being increasingly scrutinized.  Maybe instead of a populist conservatism, there might be a populist libertarianism. 

I think you are going to see Hispanics increasingly integrated into both parts and, if there is a realignment, probably moving toward the GOP.

Social issues might be in retreat.  Even my arguments against same sex marriages are actuarial, not societal or social.  I'm saying, it costs too much, not it destroys the moral fiber of society or is anti-family.

[J. J.]

I'm not sure of your analogies.  I would expect it to be the antithesis of a Bob Casey, Senior, who was big on antiabortion policies.  The driving force is not "social issues" with what we just saw happen with the debt ceiling.

I could see a more libertarian government coming.

[J. J.]

You could see two situations:

1.  Obama wins and is the next Jimmy Carter, only worse.  Within 5 years of today there is Christian conservative Congress abnd President.

Worse than Jimmy Carter? How is that possible?

I think you might be seeing the answer to your question in fool in a few months, though it is more apparent today.

[J. J.]

Well, that's what I am trying to say. The average "moderate" democrat will be more like Dave Fruedenthal than Bob Casey. Democrats, to have a voice, will have to ally with libertarian Republcians, not fiscally moderate pro-lifers.

Well, I think the social issue candidates will be in retreat.  A DINO, or conservative Democrat, like Casey, Sr., will be judged on economic issues.  Casey, Jr., as he now stands, will be seen less as a DINO.

[J. J.]

I don't think I ever mentioned it, but on July 22, 1984, for a course, I wrote a paper on if there was a realignment going on in America.  I took the position, yes, we were.

After the assignment was completed, the professor finally answered the question we all wanted to know, did he think there was a realignment.  He said no.  I got an A on the paper anyhow. 

I had another class with the professor that fall, and after the election, I asked if he thought we had a realignment.  He said yes.

It is extremely difficult to predict one, even while it is happening, though generally they occur at 30-50 year periods.

Some of the indicators are present, for 2010 being the precursor election, but they have present at other times, and no realignment occurred.  Just a loss for Obama would not alone signal a realignment.

[J. J.]

Here is a lecture from Walter Dean Burnham, Professor Emeritus in Government, University of Texas, one the realignment academics.  It is from 2006.

One of his predictions was wrong, but the last few minutes are quite telling.

http://www.laits.utexas.edu/la_lecture_archive/vid1/index.html

[J. J.]

I don't think I ever mentioned it, but on July 22, 1984, for a course, I wrote a paper on if there was a realignment going on in America.  I took the position, yes, we were.

After the assignment was completed, the professor finally answered the question we all wanted to know, did he think there was a realignment.  He said no.  I got an A on the paper anyhow. 

I had another class with the professor that fall, and after the election, I asked if he thought we had a realignment.  He said yes.

It is extremely difficult to predict one, even while it is happening, though generally they occur at 30-50 year periods.

Some of the indicators are present, for 2010 being the precursor election, but they have present at other times, and no realignment occurred.  Just a loss for Obama would not alone signal a realignment.

I don't understand. The last realignment was in 1980, for Republicans, and now you're heralding another one in 2012, also for Republicans? How can something get "re-aligned" for a party that it is already "aligned" for? If there is ever going to be such a thing, it'll happen for the Democrats.

A realignment deals with a change in a number of factors not necessarily party.  Both 1860 and 1896 were Republican realignments.

Go back and read page 1, and then look at the last line of what you quoted.  I'm looking at two things in 2012, has the realignment started, and who wins in 2012.  The answer could be "no" and the "Republicans."

[J. J.]

One fairly major change might be a reduction in the size of the military and military spending.

[J. J.]

Could this be a general incorporation of a theme surrounding the end of the Cold War? As in, with the loss of the risks associated with constant major threats, the role of the Government isn't going down some sort of new path of delegating itself out of existence but that the Government is simply going back to what was like before there were constant internal threats against America's prevailing economic microcracy and national security. And that this will generally continue until there is a country that is finally strong enough to go toe-to-toe with the US militarily and economically and/or there is a credible alternative created inside the United States by those who are losing out in the current corporately-controlled economic model. 

I think, once translated in American English, this might be a correct point.  The threat, and means for dealing with the threat, are now much different.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Something like Obamacare has been Democratic policy since about 1948, so you may be right.  I have enough difficulty projecting out into the early 2010's, so I'm not looking at the longer term as of yet.