Two Guesses

[J. J.]

I'll refine this prediction.  If Obama wins, the realignment begins in 2010. 

[J. J.]

I'll refine this prediction.  If Obama wins, the realignment begins in 2010. 

Are you talking about the final destruction of liberalism and start of the age of eugenics, preemptive "limited" nuclear war, fuedalization of the economy, theocracy, the mass forced repatriatriation of the remaining liberals and swarthy foreigners and the general birth of the Fourth Reich?

It's a political realignment.  I'm taking about voting patterns, candidate selection, policy changes.

[J. J.]

I'll refine this prediction.  If Obama wins, the realignment begins in 2010. 

Are you talking about the final destruction of liberalism and start of the age of eugenics, preemptive "limited" nuclear war, fuedalization of the economy, theocracy, the mass forced repatriatriation of the remaining liberals and swarthy foreigners and the general birth of the Fourth Reich?

It's a political realignment.  I'm taking about voting patterns, candidate selection, policy changes.

Oh. Sorry. I think I am just talking about the policy changes, then.

No, those are unintended consequences.

[J. J.]

I'll refine this prediction.  If Obama wins, the realignment begins in 2010. 

Are you talking about the final destruction of liberalism and start of the age of eugenics, preemptive "limited" nuclear war, fuedalization of the economy, theocracy, the mass forced repatriatriation of the remaining liberals and swarthy foreigners and the general birth of the Fourth Reich?

It's a political realignment.  I'm taking about voting patterns, candidate selection, policy changes.

I was debating part of this point with a Green Party candidate last night. His view was one of little difference between established parties, thus the need for a third (or beyond) party. I contended that the American system lent itself to the periodic regrouping of coalitions under the banner of the major parties.

In some sense American parties form their coalitions before the elections as opposed to creating a governing coalition afterward. We could well be due for a shuffling of those coalitions.

Quite right.

Keep this in mind.  When I first posted this in January, I, a fairly solid Republican, was undecided and very possibly would be voting for Obama over most of the candidates (and for Clinton over McCain).

Also consider that I would consider voting for Obama in 2012, if he loses this time.

[J. J.]

Reasonable.  I would agree that the parties have not become stronger, rather the country has become more polarized, and that polarization has fallen along party lines, not necessarily strengthening the parties (or something like that).

When are you going to know for sure, so I can plan ahead.

November 2010, 2 years and about 15 days.

[J. J.]

What if Obama is doing alright? I know the fact that you may be wrong might be a tough pill...but...

Like I said about two years and 14 days, now.

I would say that the probability is, whomever wins will have a problem. 

Evin if Obama is doing alright, there are still too many problems.  Obama has some specific that have all ready come out.

[J. J.]

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.

[J. J.]

Dude!  This is the second time since FDR that a democrat got this percentage of votes. The last time was LBJ in 1964. The fastest growing groups trended overwhelmingly for Obama. Obama won states that I though 2 years ago that a democrat would not win in 50 years.

Dud!  If you think this is anything like 1932, you are sadly mistaken.  You could make a much better argument that Carter was leading a Democratic realignment in 1976. 

This one isn't the realignment. 

[J. J.]

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.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, Nixon's was not a realignment in 1968.  The beginning was 1980 when the GOP took the Senate and the presidency.  The difference was that Reagan not only one by just under 10% but flipped ten or twelve states.

[J. J.]

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.

Then again, remember Nixon against Humphery. He won by an even less of a margin....and Obama won 9 states away from Bush/McCain. These are only sematical differences. ...and perhaps nearly a half-dozen more were on the brink of going blue. Montana, The Dakotas, Missouri and Georgia. Also, there is not an excuse for Texas to go 45% for a democrat... and some of the light Bush states are very heavily Obama. New Mexico and Nevada and nearly Colorado went as blue as California did in 2004. If this wasn't a realignment, I would like to see it. 

Try 1980, where Reagan, in a three man race, go a majority of the votes cast, defeated his nearest opponent by 9.7% and the GOP captured the Senate for the first time in more than 20 years.

Arguably, from 1988 onward, neither party candidate was to the left of either Carter or Ford.

[J. J.]

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. 

It shouldn't be.  Realignments, in theory are, at the longest 4-6 year affairs.  You can argue that the FDR re-alignment started in 1930, when the House shifted.  Some argue that there is a single "critical election" (1932) or a critical election and a "confirming election" (1936).

In Reagan's case, the critical election was 1980 and the confirming election was 1984.  The House/Senate shift, rather large gains was 1978.  To put this into perspective, even if the GOP would lose all House and Senate seats still outstanding, they would still have higher numbers than they did going into 1978.

[J. J.]

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. 

[J. J.]

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.

[J. J.]

...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.

[J. J.]

...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.

[J. J.]

...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. 

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

[J. J.]

Still though, the dems now have a commanding lead without the conservative coalition. This is unprecedented.

They don't in the Senate and the numbers are still up from 1978 (and I think 1991-3).

[J. J.]

Still though, the dems now have a commanding lead without the conservative coalition. This is unprecedented.

They don't in the Senate and the numbers are still up from 1978 (and I think 1991-3).

Definately not the senate. There really are only like 2 boll weavils left on the D side in the senate and only 3 moths on the R side in the senate.

Compared to the 1979-85 period, there were a lot.  The absolute Senate numbers were higher for the D's before that.  House numbers are slightly better than the late 1980's-early 1990's.

[J. J.]

It might be time to mention this again, maybe.

[J. J.]

It is too early to tell, but there have been two indication:

1.  Not just Christie's win, but his larger than expected win, in NJ.

2.  What looks like the closeness of the MA race.

Signs and Portents?  Maybe.

[J. J.]

Your first prediction was proven wrong.

You might end up seeing that was hoping the county would not take a strong swing to the right.  It may, at this point.

[J. J.]

Your first prediction was proven wrong.

He made another one, if you read the entire thread.

I didn't. BTW, are you feeling better?

A bit. I'll try to get an update tonight.

I didn't know you were sick.  Sorry to hear it.

[J. J.]

Brown wins in MA taking a seat that has been in Democratic hands since 1/3/1953 (excluding vacancies).  Signs and Portents?  Maybe, but maybe not.

One thing can be said.  It was suggested that maybe the election of Obama would be the realignment; after today, it clearly was not.

[J. J.]

You may well be right JJ, as I've said for over a year now.

That being said, this does not mean that an Obama realignment is out of the cards completely; rather, its likelihood has diminished substantially.

You were not one of the people really pointing to an Obama re-alignment.

One aspect of a re-alignment is the congressional balance, however.

Generally, a party out of power will gain in one house for 3 consecutive elections and will go from minority to majority party status in one house at least.  I think Brown killed the most likely possibility of that. 

I think that means that there isn't an Obama realignment, but it doesn't mean that Obama won't be re-elected.

The recent SCOTUS decision is also an indication; campaigns tend to fought differently.  I really should do a list of what a realignment looks like, its characteristics.

It is also next to impossible to see until you are in the last stages of it.

[J. J.]

This is the thread for this observation...

You know, since I started revisiting my long-term cyclical analysis in late 2008 (with the stock markets' action), I must say that it has consistently pointed to one of two outcomes to occur fairly soon (probably within the next ten/fifteen years or so):

1) Democrats' power falls below that of 1994 and Republicans' power eclipses 2002. (I consider 1994 to be the modern nadir of the Democratic party, and 2002 the modern height of the Republican party).
2) Democrats' power falls below that of 1994, Republicans' power falls below the 1974 level and some new 3rd party arises, which will eventually take the place of the Republican party.

The first option does align with a lot of what you've posted here. FWIW (which may be nil).

In the second case, and to extents in 1932 and 1980, the minority party can change radically when it goes into the majority.