Partisan trends in Presidential elections

[Ogre Mage]

From 1952-1988, the Republican Party won seven of ten presidential elections.  Three Republican Presidents from that era of won election twice: Dwight Eisenhower (1952/56), Richard Nixon (1968/72) and Ronald Reagan (1980/84).  The GOP had a particularly strong showing during the 1980s when Bush I followed up Reagan's landslide wins by capturing a third term for the party.  This was the first time this had been done by either party since the days of FDR/Truman.

But starting in 1992, Democrats have won four of the last six Presidential elections and they won the popular vote in five of the six.  From 1952-1988 no Democratic President won election twice, but more recently two have done so:  Bill Clinton (1992/96) and Barack Obama (2008/12). 

What are the reasons behind the Democratic Presidential candidates better showings in recent history?

[Antonio the Sixth]

I think it has to do with the Democrats becoming the centrist party and the Republicans the radical one. From Eisenhower to Ford, the GOP used to be the more moderate party. Reagan realigned the GOP to the right, and Clinton realigned the Dems to the center, prompting this shift.

[Mehmentum]

That could be it, or it could just be random variance.

[Blackacre]

Demography, GOP shift to the right, Clinton's success

[Beezer]

What are the reasons behind the Democratic Presidential candidates better showings in recent history?

The South has swung to the GOP since the early 90s in congressional elections. They're now the driving force when it comes to all matters related to ideology making the party focus on social issues instead of addressing matters that moderates in the rest of the country care about. And with every successive election, the South has become more powerful within the GOP, driving the party even further to the right which then again makes it more popular at the polls in the South at the next election (sort of like a vicious circle of moving to the right). Surely it can't be a coincidence that since the South has switched its congressional allegiance, the GOP has been on a steady downward slope in presidential elections.

Just some stats...in 94, Southern Republicans made up 28% of the GOP House caucus, with the GOP winning 53.5% of all non-Southern seats in that year's congressional election. Starting in 2013, Southern Republicans will make up 42% of the party's House caucus, with the GOP winning only 46% of all non-Southern House seats. Moderates are being driven out and replaced by hardliners with every successive election.

[politicus]

What are the reasons behind the Democratic Presidential candidates better showings in recent history?

The South has swung to the GOP since the early 90s in congressional elections. They're now the driving force when it comes to all matters related to ideology making the party focus on social issues instead of addressing matters that moderates in the rest of the country care about. And with every successive election, the South has become more powerful within the GOP, driving the party even further to the right which then again makes it more popular at the polls in the South at the next election (sort of like a vicious circle of moving to the right). Surely it can't be a coincidence that since the South has switched its congressional allegiance, the GOP has been on a steady downward slope in presidential elections.

Just some stats...in 94, Southern Republicans made up 28% of the GOP House caucus, with the GOP winning 53.5% of all non-Southern seats in that year's congressional election. Starting in 2013, Southern Republicans will make up 42% of the party's House caucus, with the GOP winning only 46% of all non-Southern House seats. Moderates are being driven out and replaced by hardliners with every successive election.

Interesting. How do you define the South in this context. Greater South or just the 11 ex-Confederate states?

[Beezer]

Just the Old Confederacy.

[politicus]

Its stats like this that make you wonder if the GOP should simply split their party in two. A Southern very conservative party and a more moderate version for the rest of the country and then just run a common presidential primary.
Kinda like the CDU/CSU construction in Germany. It looks like that might be their best bet, otherwise southern extremism is going to kill them in the long run.

[Blackacre]

Its stats like this that make you wonder if the GOP should simply split their party in two. A Southern very conservative party and a more moderate version for the rest of the country and then just run a common presidential primary.
Kinda like the CDU/CSU construction in Germany. It looks like that might be their best bet, otherwise southern extremism is going to kill them in the long run.

But then every election will be like 1912. With their main base gone, the Republicans will be powerless to face the Democrats

[politicus]

Its stats like this that make you wonder if the GOP should simply split their party in two. A Southern very conservative party and a more moderate version for the rest of the country and then just run a common presidential primary.
Kinda like the CDU/CSU construction in Germany. It looks like that might be their best bet, otherwise southern extremism is going to kill them in the long run.

But then every election will be like 1912. With their main base gone, the Republicans will be powerless to face the Democrats

Nah, not with a common primary and the moderate wing would do better in House and Senate races in the blue states.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

It wouldn't work politicus.  We already have a degree of decoupling between the state and national parties that has allowed for state politics to be more competitive in some states than they would be in national politics. But as soon as someone ran for Congress they'd be stuck with national politics.

I think to have any hope of subnational parties arising in the United States, we'd need to have to end the government-funded primary races in this country.  That would provide the impetus for parties to fracture at the state level where they are safe at the national level so that what would in the US be two wings of the same party seeking to win the primary races, would instead be two parties seeking to win the general election.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

I think it has to do with the Democrats becoming the centrist party and the Republicans the radical one. From Eisenhower to Ford, the GOP used to be the more moderate party. Reagan realigned the GOP to the right, and Clinton realigned the Dems to the center, prompting this shift.

Exactly.  Republicans are seen as extreme, especially on social issues.  That's why 1992 was a realignment.