2008: A Realignment in the making

[CARLHAYDEN]

First, Presidential cycles have run on 32 - 36 years cycles.  While this is not fixed, no explanation has been offered for the last cycle (in your explanation) for lasting 4 - 8 years longer than past cycles.

Second, there has been a historical trend for the party emerging as a majority Presidential party to nominate someone in the prior cycle who encapsulates the essence of the new majority, but who is in that election defeated massively.  Look at Goldwater in 1964, and Smith in 1928 as the two most recent examples.  So, how was the Kerry candidacy significantly different from Gore?

Third, historically the northeast has been the lagging political bulwark of the ancien regime, whereas the "heartland" has been the region which has provided the change.  Right now the northeast is pretty solidly liberal Democrat.

Fourth, it is in the nature of things for people to be dissatisfied with the status quo (and Bush has done a lot to increase that dissatisfaction).  That does not mean that people are for just any change. 

[CARLHAYDEN]

I think the other point to note is that within one political cycle, both parties may move in the same direction - which can explain why different parties can hold the White House within the one cycle. Politicians in both parties, after all, are fairly astute at seeing which way the wind is blowing.

Could this also show how Gilded Age Republicans were replaced by Progressive Republicans, instead of democrats?

The "quote" cited was from a statement of Smid, not mine.