2004 as a realigning election?

[A18]

That fits.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

so·cial·ism
n.
Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.

Dictionaries always get this wrong... it'd be better defined as a political and economic theory that argues for equality, brotherhood and social justice.

[MODU]

This theory is similar to the "generation gap" theory.  With that, no two consecutive generations are the same nor share similar ideologies.  Example: We went from WWII vets to Vietnam anti-war protestors (with the free love/drugs undertone) to the conservative right.

Basically, it boils down to the pendulum effect.  Pull the pendulum all the way to the left and let go, it will eventually swing to the right.  Once it has reached the right, it will swing to the left.  When the country becomes too conservative, those that feel like they are being suffocated will push against the swing to the right and bring forth a liberal age.  When the country becomes too liberal, those that feel that the country is losing it's moral base will push against the swing to the left.

[AuH2O]

Not really. In the US, politics are driven by supply, not demand.

The parties sell ideas to voters, packaged as something that will benefit them. The immediate cost of this potential improvement is a vote, then possibly more tax dollars or lifestyle changes.

People's views are formed by the party salesmen and also by events. The media plays a role in conveying both the political sales pitch and characterizing events.

[dazzleman]

I think the real realigning election of this period ws 1992.

The 1992 election marked the first time in a generation that Democrats were able to break the electoral lock that Republicans had on the White House.

And Democrats have held onto many of those gains despite their relatively close losses in 2000 and 2004.  Democrats have strongly increased their previously good performance in decaying urban areas, and reversed their poor performance in certain suburban areas.  Voting blocs that used to lean Republican, or at least be swing voters, and now strongly Democratic.

By the same token, many other voters who may have voted Democratic in the past for economic reasons now vote strongly Republican.  It could be argued that they were pushed toward the Republicans by the libertine tint of the Clinton administration.

[Democratic Hawk]

If anything these results have confirmed that of 2000, with only three states changing hands

Has any other American President ever been elected to two terms by such close margins as Bush?

In terms of a realignment, there has been a steady swing to the Republicans in terms of party ID but lets face it ideological liberals do seem to be diminishing. That said America is far from ideologically conservative

The future of the America (and hopefully, the Democratic Party) lies in the ideological centre. My vision is that of an emerging moderate majority to counter both conservative and liberal excesses

Dave

[Nym90]

I think the real realigning election of this period ws 1992.

The 1992 election marked the first time in a generation that Democrats were able to break the electoral lock that Republicans had on the White House.

And Democrats have held onto many of those gains despite their relatively close losses in 2000 and 2004. Democrats have strongly increased their previously good performance in decaying urban areas, and reversed their poor performance in certain suburban areas. Voting blocs that used to lean Republican, or at least be swing voters, and now strongly Democratic.

By the same token, many other voters who may have voted Democratic in the past for economic reasons now vote strongly Republican. It could be argued that they were pushed toward the Republicans by the libertine tint of the Clinton administration.

Good point. The following states voted for Bush in 1988, but haven't gone Republican since, and many show no sign of going Republican in the near future:

Maine
Vermont
Connecticut
New Jersey
Pennsylvania
Delaware
Maryland
Michigan
Illinois
California

Of these, only Pennsylvania is truly competitive for the GOP, with Michigan an outside possibilty--it leans Democratic but would go Republican in a solid GOP victory. Otherwise, the others are all lost to the GOP barring a landslide win. Even Pennsylvania clearly leans Dem, it's a competitive state, but it's not a true swing state.

[A18]

Then Ohio and Florida aren't swing states either.

[Nym90]

I would agree that Florida now leans GOP, though it's still competitive.

Ohio was actually slightly more Democratic than the national average in this election, so I don't see how it can not be included, especially since it's the Electoral College victory bellwhether.

When you think of "swing states" in general, you have to compensate for the national popular vote margin. Florida is less GOP relative to the national average than Pennsylvania is Democratic. Ohio is THE swing state, at least for now (it was Florida in 2000, might well be something else in 2008, it depends on the candidates).

In this election, Florida went from a swing state to lean GOP, while Ohio went from lean GOP to swing. Kudos to The Vorlon, who predicted that this was happening months in advance.

[A18]

The national margin in an election is irrelevant. The winner of an election is not determined by what the state margin was compared to the national margin. The winner of an election is determined by who gets more votes.

That said, Bush got a large percentage in Ohio than he did nationally. There was no Nader in Ohio.

[Nym90]

I realize that it's irrelevant to the outcome, but I think it's relevant when discussing what is a swing state.

Obviously each person can use their own criteria as to what is a swing state and what isn't. But if Ohio is classified as a Republican state and not as a swing state, that would imply that the Republican base consists of more than 270 Electoral Votes.

[dca5347]

I think it's right to point out that each election in and of itself is unique.And there are 3rd party factors to consider. 1968 without Wallace,and 1992 without Perot might have produced far different outcomes in the Electoral College. you could also say the same about 1912 without Roosevelt. But I don't think you can say that about Thumond(1948) or Anderson(1980)

[muon2]

Realignment is about more than state voting patterns. It's really about the structure of broad coalitions that make up the major parties. These party coalitions manifest themselves both in Congress and in the White House.

There's no question that the elections of 1896 and 1932 really defined new coalitions for the parties. It is much less clear when the New Deal era comes to an end. Many like the use of 1968 because of its convienient 36 year period. I don't favor that date, but think that other factors came into play during that period of the 1960's and 70's.

The coalition of Southern populists and Northern ethnics defined the backbone of the New Deal coalition. The civil rights movement strained this relationship, but didn't really break it. On most other legislative debates and budgetary battles the New Deal held. In 1968 Wallace carried the southern states, in part because he was  the New Deal Democrat that fit the coalition. After the 1972 landslide, Carter came back and carried all southern states but Va, which had been generally lost to Democrats since the 50's. Note that Clinton never carried all the Deep South.

What had changed by the 1960's was the sharp decline in party discipline. This was a trend that had begun early in the 20th Century, but accelerated during the Cold War. The independents were recognized as a voting block, and Members of Congress could break ranks without much penalty. The lack of discipline could make it seem like 1968 was a watershed, but I think it was more about Vietnam, Civil Rights, and the lack of strong party ties.

IMO, the new coalition formed in 1980 with the Reagan Revolution. The Boll Weevil Democrats really became a part of the Reagan coalition and consistently voted with the Republicans on a wide range of issues. The new coalition split white ethnics and southern populists away from the New Deal adding them to the rural Plains and suburban base of the Republicans.

The importance of 1994 was that it brought party discipline back to Washington and the Reagan coalition became a Republican coalition. The partisanship we see now is much more in line with American tradition; the period of the Cold War was the exception.

[Beet]

Some of it depends on whether you consider the first election where a new coalition emerges to victory, or the election following the last election won by the old coalition, to be the true realignment. It's pretty clear that in 1976 Carter won by a temporary revival of the New Deal coalition. But if you think how Clinton did better in the South in 1992 then any Democratic candidate could do today, and how the Democrat majority in Congress in 1992 was still built in the South, there were still elements of the New Deal coalition even in 1992. In fact it wasn't until this year that the GOP took control of the Georgia House of Representatives. So it's been a looong process.

Yet when was the first election in which the new GOP coalition of the conservative South and West along with blue collar "Joe Sixpack" voters in the Midwest emerge together to form a victorious majority? Clearly it was in 1968.

While Wallace's issue positions were consistent with the New Deal (I'm not aware that he was opposed to it), what he represented was the same force of backlash that Goldwater represented insofar as Goldwater won in the deep South. His campaign was not built on the themes the New Deal was built on.

The New Deal coalition crumbled in three stages. The first was in 1952 when the Western states (California, Colorado, Wyoming, Utah, Idaho, Arizona, Montana, Colorado, Oregon, Washington) went Republican and with the exception of 1964 stayed Republican. In 1960 Kennedy won Nevada and New Mexico, and in 1968 Humphrey won Washington, but otherwise the West became the most Republican part of the country.

The second stage was in 1964 when the five states of the deep South went between 54-87% for Goldwater. With the exception of 1976 they would not go Democrat again, some until 1992, others to this day.

The final stage was in 1968 when the conservative backlash won majorities in the Northeastern industrial states. Had union workers stuck with Humphrey, he would have won New Jersey, Ohio and Illinois. Kennedy had won 2 of the 3. But even in the heavily unionized states of Michigan and Pennsylvania he got less than half the vote. In the 1972 primary Michigan Democrats gave Wallace a 51-27% win over McGovern, then those voters went for Nixon in November. So hence Wallace's 10% in Michigan and 8% in Pennsylvania were part of the new backlash against liberalism, not the old New Deal coalition.

This is on the Presidential level only. On legislative debates and budgetary battles the New Deal coalition did hold. Part of the reason I think was the shallowness of the conservative movement at that time. It wasn't really an organized, self-conscious ideological force dedicated to taking over government, it was more of a national mood, a knee-jerk reaction. Thus it manifested itself on the national stage where that which was being reacted to was most visible. Nevertheless the future conservative majority was built on the shifts of the 1960s.

[King]

I don't think so. I've always said that 1994 was the most important election in the past 30 or so years (with the possible exception of 1980). 2004 was merely a continuation of the Republican rule that depending on your point of view began in '68, '80, or '94

Why 94?

The Democrats had nearly 60 seats in the Senate pre-1994 elections and just 45 after. This shifted the tides of policy for the next forever...

[minionofmidas]

I think it's right to point out that each election in and of itself is unique.And there are 3rd party factors to consider. 1968 without Wallace,and 1992 without Perot might have produced far different outcomes in the Electoral College. you could also say the same about 1912 without Roosevelt. But I don't think you can say that about Thumond(1948) or Anderson(1980)

Without Anderson, Carter would've held a state or three more, but it wouldnt've made for a radically different result.
Thurmond's was hardly a serious candidacy - he wasn't on the ballot in enough states to be able to theoretically win the EC - but that election might've played out quite a bit differently without him nonetheless. Truman's control of the South would have probably been seen as a given (it was Thurmond's success which encouraged Eisenhower to actively campaign in the South, which no Rep candidate after Hoover had done, after all) and a vote for Wallace might not have looked as dangerous to Progressives, since Truman would have likely been seen as the frontrunner. That might have moved a few more Northern states into the Rep column.

[Nym90]

I don't think so. I've always said that 1994 was the most important election in the past 30 or so years (with the possible exception of 1980). 2004 was merely a continuation of the Republican rule that depending on your point of view began in '68, '80, or '94

Why 94?

The Democrats had nearly 60 seats in the Senate pre-1994 elections and just 45 after. This shifted the tides of policy for the next forever...

Um, it wasn't quite that drastic, the Democrats went from 56 seats to 48 seats in that election.

[Silent Hunter]

1968 was a realigning election. This isn't.