The New Democratic Majority -- It's Realignment

[BaconBacon96]

I don't see any realignment. In terms of how regions vote, the 2012 map is roughly similar to the 2000 map.

[Mechaman]

Every Eastern state from Connecticut southward that was winnable by a D post-1872 became a Republican overperformance zone except for Maryland, which moved from safe D to marginal.  Republicans flipped every urban county from Boston to San Francisco, and carried New Jersey, a state that never voted for Lincokln, as well the previously Democratic NYC boroughs.  This is what Walter Dean Burnham calls the "Systwem of 1896" and that Kevin Phillips discusses extensively in ERM and in his American Presidents Series bio on William McKinley (2003).

After 1896, Dems were confined to the Old Confederacy, sometimes KY-MO, the new state of Okla., and in 1916, Ariz and NM.

Dems won the WH in 1912 only because of the R party split, and held on in 1916 by a 3,773 vote margin from California.

Umm buddy, I believe that is what people mean by the 1896 realignment.  I mean, jeez dude, don't you know any history outside of electoral stats?  I mean don't take this the wrong way, but virtually everybody on this website and probably even most American high school students would consider 1896 a realignment election.  Especially for the Democratic Party, who had nominated a foaming at the mouth evangelical free silver liberal who damned Wall Street and the railroads like it was going out of style!  Considering that four years earlier they nominated Grover Cleveland, who was considered to be basically a free trade Republican by many, it's definitely a realignment.  Also, Bryan and his ilk sort of dominated the party from about 1896-1920, with the exception of when Alton Parker was nominated.  And even then, Parker had to move significantly left just to appease Bryanites who threatened to sit out the 1904 Election.
And if you want to bring in electoral results, well. . .  look at the West and the Plains states.  If you are looking at just statewide results, like who won an election in each state, of course alignments will seem pretty easy.

Also, your conclusions about 1916 are just false.  Wilson did the best since any Democratic candidate since Cleveland in the Northeast.  He won the totally Old Confederate state of Ohio by seven points over Hughes.  He won Washington with 48% of the vote.  He won New Hampshire (barely).  While he did lose in Massachusetts, he did better in that state than he did in New York (probably the first for a Democrat), losing by less than FOUR percentage points.  He lost in Connecticut by only three points.  Rhode Island was decided for Republicans by only five points.  Rhode Island and Massachusetts were states that, in the 19th century, were stubbornly anti-Democratic in many cases.

May I suggest that in your analyses you seem to make the mistake of many of seeing the forest for the trees?  It almost seems like political machines, organized labor, the Irish, German Catholics, etc. that made up the Northern coalition didn't exist.

Just saying.

[eric82oslo]

I think a more interesting question is whether or not realignments actually exist. Sean Trende makes a pretty good case against it in The Lost Majority.

Sean Trende has never had a rational thought EVER.  It's amazing he gets paid money to write such gibberish.

Agreed. I consider him a troll. Paid for by badly disguised Republican statregists to make their party seem less out of touch and out of control than what they really is.

[stevekamp]

Flawless Victory:  I said, and it was my intent to say, that 1896 was a realignment.  I was responding to someone who said it was not.

BaconBacon96: compared to 2004, in 2008 Ohio, Virginia, Florida, Iowa, New Mexico, Nevada and Colorado moved, and in 2012, they all stayed with 95% or more of their 2008 margins. 2004 was the all time peak Republican raw number, nationally and in the key states (especially Ohio, but not in Virginia). 

In the New Deal Cycle, much of the FDR-Truman states in the West and Outer South moved to Eisenhower, and stayed with a losing Nixon in 1960.  They became the core of the Emerging Republican Majority in 1968.  In 1992, the western half of the ERM flipped away, and the ERM became dominated by the South (instead of suburbia as in 1968-1988). 

[BaconBacon96]

Flawless Victory:  I said, and it was my intent to say, that 1896 was a realignment.  I was responding to someone who said it was not.

BaconBacon96: compared to 2004, in 2008 Ohio, Virginia, Florida, Iowa, New Mexico, Nevada and Colorado moved, and in 2012, they all stayed with 95% or more of their 2008 margins. 2004 was the all time peak Republican raw number, nationally and in the key states (especially Ohio, but not in Virginia). 

In the New Deal Cycle, much of the FDR-Truman states in the West and Outer South moved to Eisenhower, and stayed with a losing Nixon in 1960.  They became the core of the Emerging Republican Majority in 1968.  In 1992, the western half of the ERM flipped away, and the ERM became dominated by the South (instead of suburbia as in 1968-1988). 

Oh that makes sense.

[Mechaman]

Flawless Victory:  I said, and it was my intent to say, that 1896 was a realignment.  I was responding to someone who said it was not.

BaconBacon96: compared to 2004, in 2008 Ohio, Virginia, Florida, Iowa, New Mexico, Nevada and Colorado moved, and in 2012, they all stayed with 95% or more of their 2008 margins. 2004 was the all time peak Republican raw number, nationally and in the key states (especially Ohio, but not in Virginia).  

In the New Deal Cycle, much of the FDR-Truman states in the West and Outer South moved to Eisenhower, and stayed with a losing Nixon in 1960.  They became the core of the Emerging Republican Majority in 1968.  In 1992, the western half of the ERM flipped away, and the ERM became dominated by the South (instead of suburbia as in 1968-1988).  

Oh wow sorry.  All you non-avatars look alike!

I must've not been awake when I made that post.  Though, I do stand by my comments on 1916.

Oh and, nice to meet you!

[Heimdal]

I think a more interesting question is whether or not realignments actually exist. Sean Trende makes a pretty good case against it in The Lost Majority.

Sean Trende has never had a rational thought EVER.  It's amazing he gets paid money to write such gibberish.

That is a ridiculous thing to say.

If you haven’t, you should read the book.

[sdu754]

Every Eastern state from Connecticut southward that was winnable by a D post-1872 became a Republican overperformance zone except for Maryland, which moved from safe D to marginal.  Republicans flipped every urban county from Boston to San Francisco, and carried New Jersey, a state that never voted for Lincokln, as well the previously Democratic NYC boroughs.  This is what Walter Dean Burnham calls the "Systwem of 1896" and that Kevin Phillips discusses extensively in ERM and in his American Presidents Series bio on William McKinley (2003).

After 1896, Dems were confined to the Old Confederacy, sometimes KY-MO, the new state of Okla., and in 1916, Ariz and NM.

Dems won the WH in 1912 only because of the R party split, and held on in 1916 by a 3,773 vote margin from California.

You also said: "Each of these elections was characterized by one of the two parties ejecting the other from majority status and maintaining the White House for up to 24 consecutive years as the “sun” party"

The Republicans were the "sun" party from 1860-1928. Not only that, but the Democratic party was basically a party that tried to unify the south & the west to create an electoral majority.

You said "After 1896, Dems were confined to the Old Confederacy" This statement is as much true for the 1860-1892 period as it is for the 1896-1928 period.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/elections.php

Look at the individual elections from 1896-1928

1896: the economy was in a shambles, the Democrats were all but guaranteed to lose that year    (Like Van Buren in 1840 & Hoover in 1932)
1900: McKinley was a popular incumbent
1904: Roosevelt was an even more popular incumbent
1908: Taft was TRs hand picked successor
1912: Taft & TR split republican ticket
1916: "He kept us out of war"
1920: A reaction to Wilson's popularity
1924: Coolidge popular incumbent during "Peace & Prosperity"
1928: Hoover seen as Coolidge's successor & is one of the more popular Americans in his own rights (Both parties wanted to run him) 

As you can see the Democrats had an uphill battle in all the elections they lost. In the elections from 1860- 1892, only Cleveland & Tilden were able to make serious inroads into the North.

[sdu754]

Umm buddy, I believe that is what people mean by the 1896 realignment.  I mean, jeez dude, don't you know any history outside of electoral stats?  I mean don't take this the wrong way, but virtually everybody on this website and probably even most American high school students would consider 1896 a realignment election.

Other than taking a "free silver" stance, how was the Democrat party any different? They still were for racial prejudice, low tariffs and an income tax (all parts of the 1896 platform all things Cleveland supported)

Especially for the Democratic Party, who had nominated a foaming at the mouth evangelical free silver liberal who damned Wall Street and the railroads like it was going out of style!

 

Sounds kind of like Andrew Jackson and his bank war. The Free Silver stance was taken to court western voters. (Destruction of the American Indians was completed by this point)

Considering that four years earlier they nominated Grover Cleveland, who was considered to be basically a free trade Republican by many, it's definitely a realignment.  

Bryan made the free silver issue a major difference between the parties, before that it had not been. As I stated Earlier, what other differences were there?

And if you want to bring in electoral results, well. . .  look at the West and the Plains states.  If you are looking at just statewide results, like who won an election in each state, of course alignments will seem pretty easy.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/elections.php

You can look at the map & my previous post, the Democrats were basically a party of the former slave states from 1860-1928. The Democrats had basically 3 good candidates: Tilden, Cleveland & Wilson, otherwise they were basically uncompetitive.