Three 2012 scenarios

[J. J.]

There is a fourth possibility.  Obama basically does as well as Bush (1992), Dukakis (1988), and Dole (1996), a loss, but not a landslide.

Right now, the odds on Obama increasing his electoral votes is close to zero.

[J. J.]

Right now, the odds on Obama increasing his electoral votes is close to zero.

This I agree with. I think it will be very tough for Obama to hold IN & NC and I don't see how he'd make up for that elsewhere.

I'd add NH to that list and that one NE district.  I would also note that, with redistricting, he loses 6 electoral votes even if he carries the same states.

The Republican might have 210 without too much effort.

[J. J.]

This is a blowout:

If the map looked something like this, I'd be announcing the high probability of a realignment and waiting for confirmation in 2014.

This, however, is not a blowout:

Obama could still lose, and there would be no realignment.  I'd still be saying a realignment is coming.

[J. J.]

Obama could still lose, and there would be no realignment.  I'd still be saying a realignment is coming.

Uh, care to elaborate?

I said that in 2016 we'll either be starting, in or just finishing a realignment.  It is entirely possible that 2012 is not the realignment year and it starts in 2014.

If 2012 looks something like this...

... we are probably seeing a political realignment, a fundamental change in political patterns.


Obama could still lose, but the patterns don't change too much.  We could still see a realignment starting in 2014.

Like wise, Obama could win and we could still be seeing a realignment in 2014.

Basically, I see four elections in a realignment:

The Precursor Election - The congressional elections where the realignment party (RP), the one out of power, makes gains and usually gains one house. (1858, 1894, 1930, 1978)

The Realigning Election - The RP president wins, with a big popular, and/or electoral, vote margin.  One house, at least, becomes RP.  (1860, 1896 (the weakest), 1936, 1980).

The Hold Election - RP holds the house and usually increases seats (1862, 1898, 1934, 1982)

The Confirming Election - RP president wins, and wins bigger than before.  RP holds the house.  (1864, 1900, 1936, 1984).

Failing to confirm to this pattern is why 1912, 1952, 1972, and 1992 are not realignments.

Was 2010 a Precursor?  Maybe, but there were other false precursors before, 1910, 1918, 1946, 1966, 1994, and 2006.

[J. J.]

Obama could still lose, and there would be no realignment.  I'd still be saying a realignment is coming.

Uh, care to elaborate?

...

Was 2010 a Precursor?  Maybe, but there were other false precursors before, 1910, 1918, 1946, 1966, 1994, and 2006.

Yes, I see your point. All evidence points to 2010 being just another false "precursor" - but this time it will be different!

No, realignments tend to occur at least 32 years apart.  None of these others, except 1966, were at that interval.  All realignments have a domestic crisis source, slavery (1860), bimetalism (1896), very bad economic conditions (1932, 1980). Arguably, that was present in 1946, and, stretching it with desegregation, 1966, but not in the others.  Both those factors were present in 2010.

I'd say that all evidence supports 2010 being the "precursor election," but there is not yet enough evidence to say definitely that it is happening.  Had 2010 produced 35 new Republicans in the House and 4 new Republicans in the Senate, I would have said it was good year to be a Republican, but there was no realignment.  A 35 seat gain in the House would normally be seen as a great victory for either party since 1980.  Same with a 4 seat Senate gain.

That's why you see to Obama loss maps.  One is, he loses, but the normal patterns remain.  The other is what you'd see in a realignment.

[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.

[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. 

[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.

[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.