Three 2012 scenarios

[nhmagic]

I disagree about 1992 - I think it was a realigning election when you consider New England and the Pacific Coast falling to democrats (partic w. Vermont and Maine).  The South didn't really start expanding for republicans until 2000/2002 (yes it was happening earlier, but it wasnt as titanic a shift like Cali and the New England movement).  2010 was a realigning election - the industrial, post-union power midwest is moving toward the GOP.  This will be likely affirmed in 2012 with Iowa, Ohio, Indiana, Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania going GOP with Minnesota close behind.  The mountain west is moving toward its position as the major swing region along with a swingish trend developing in a couple of the mid atlantic states/upper southern coast (NJ, VA, NC) and ME & NH returning to republican roots. 

[J. J.]

As someone who is doing their PhD on realignments, I would say that I believe the evidence for anything besides a panic-driven blip is quite scant.

You may have to re-write your dissertation in about 15 months.    I also will refer you to the realignment thread and the changing view of one of my professors. 

I do not believe that there is, as of yet, strong evidence for a realignment.  There is, however, some evidence for it and, as of yet no evidence against it.  (I've actually been looking for that evidence.)

The only thing I can say is that there is tremendous evidence that 2008 was not the realigning election.

[Paul Kemp]

J.J., what sort of evidence is there that proves, or at least supports, your notion that 2010 was the beginning of a huge realignment?

The deluge, of course.

[J. J.]

J.J., what sort of evidence is there that proves, or at least supports, your notion that 2010 was the beginning of a huge realignment?

Yes, they won a lot of seats. Just like in 1946, and 1994. But there must be more evidence than those nifty lookin' numbers.

No, actually neither 1994 nor 1946 had a swing this great.  The only times that there was a swing this great or greater were in 1874, 1894, 1920, 1932, and 1948; the only ones not in a presidential year was 1894, a precursor election, and 1874 where some states had been added to the union two years before.  As far as I know, no states have been added to the union in 2000's, so maybe 1874 isn't that good.

So right there, that is a signal.  It's not a strong one, but it is a signal.

[Let's look at 1946-48.  The unemployment was exactly the same, low at 3.9%.  Inflation changed.  In October 1946 it was 17.7%.  It went higher in the first half of 1947, but then it started dropping.  By October 1948, it had dropped to 4.8%.  People could see that the economy was improving and rather dramatically, and they could see it happening for a year before.  We are passed that improvement point, in 2011.  Is the economy improving?]

That is another signal.  All realignments occurred because of some domestic problem, slavery, a bad economy, or a really bad and extended economic problem.  That happened in 1860 (slavery), 1896 (bimetalism), 1932 (unemployment), 1980 (inflation).

Third, as I pointed out, was the timing.  It is generally 36 years, but that might be generational, because the space between the last two, 1930 to 1978; so it is not absolutely regular.  That time between the two eliminate 1874, 1920 and 1948.

So we have:

1.  Off year congressional gains of above 50 seats by the RP.

2.  A prolonged domestic crisis.

3.  A 30+ year gap since the last realignment.

It certainly isn't enough data to show that a realignment is happening, but it is stronger than 1920, 1946, 1994, or 2006.  The nice thing is, we'll get more data in 2012 and 2014. 

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

As someone who is doing their PhD on realignments, I would say that I believe the evidence for anything besides a panic-driven blip is quite scant.

You may have to re-write your dissertation in about 15 months.    I also will refer you to the realignment thread and the changing view of one of my professors. 

I do not believe that there is, as of yet, strong evidence for a realignment.  There is, however, some evidence for it and, as of yet no evidence against it.  (I've actually been looking for that evidence.)

The only thing I can say is that there is tremendous evidence that 2008 was not the realigning election.

I'm waiting until 2012 until even determining any kind of argument, and I have read the thread... but saw nothing convincing... it reminds me of psychics, if you asks pretty general questions you can make the information fit the criteria.

I think there is evidence of some kind of shift in the electorate in 2008 - but not a traditional 'realignment' - we won't know until the next election what the nature of 2008 was... I think trying to tie congressional election results to argue for a re-alignment is a bit of a red-herring. The dynamics are very different.

2010 was a traditional panic election, where a local-driven set of candidates work against the status-quo, which was part of the reason why the Tea Party candidates did so well in the House, but poorly at the Senate level. People are angry and scared, so they vote against the incumbents... which is very normal - but it doesn't seem to suggest some broad-scale political shift present in 2010.

If you see large-scale shifts away from solid Democratic voting blocs to the GOP in 2012 that hold into 2016... or if Obama manages to hold onto his somewhat unique support-base in 2012.. then we'll know what kind of alignment has emerged.

I think whatever the next realignment is, I doubt will fit the traditional format.

[J. J.]

I'm waiting until 2012 until even determining any kind of argument, and I have read the thread... but saw nothing convincing... it reminds me of psychics, if you asks pretty general questions you can make the information fit the criteria.

I think there is evidence of some kind of shift in the electorate in 2008 - but not a traditional 'realignment' - we won't know until the next election what the nature of 2008 was... I think trying to tie congressional election results to argue for a re-alignment is a bit of a red-herring. The dynamics are very different.

First, the thresholds on the 2010 election came out before the results.

Second, the Congressional change has been part of realignment theory for decades; it has also been present for generations.

Now, as I indicated, these are early signs; it does not prove the realignment.  It is something we should be watching.

[justW353]

This is how I see 2012.  Obama is favored with 263 electoral votes, vs. Republicans being favored with 180.  If the Republicans win all the swing (green) states, they win the White House.  However, that's extremely unlikely.  They'd probably have to take a couple Obama states plus most of the green states.

It's much easier for Obama to win the election than a Republican.  Plus, if the Republicans don't nominate Romney, they probably don't have a shot (besides maybe with Ron Paul).

[TheGlobalizer]

GOP win but not a blowout.

[zorkpolitics]

Interesting voting, 60% look for a close election, but 20% see a blow out one way or the other.  So will one of the blow groups turn out to be prophetic or are both delusional?

[J. J.]

I'm still voting close because I'm an eternal pessimist. 

Also, it depends on how you define blowout.  I'd say the loser gets 100 or less electoral votes.