Presidential Table Vol. 2: Re-aligners

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

Part two of the table series.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[ElectionsGuy]

Eisenhower, its not even close.

[Supersonic]

McKinley by far.

[Lief 🗽]

How is Eisenhower a re-aligner?

[morgieb]

McKinley by far.

The only real answer atm. If Obama is the realigner......

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

How is Eisenhower a re-aligner?

1952 is the most monumental election in presidential election in American history.

The first cracks appear in the Solid South, with TX, FL, and VA all going for Eisenhower.  The idea that Republicans could have been competitive in these Confederate states was laughable as recently as the late '40s.

1928 just called.

The national Democratic party was is disarray in 1928, and Smith's Catholic religion hurt him immensely in the mainly Baptist South.  1952 represents a profund change in the way that Southerners viewed national politics, while 1928 was just a referendum on the unusually weak Democratic nominee.  The 1952-1968 era in the South was very consequential, as the GOP gains made on Eisenhower's watch largely "stuck".   

[TNF]

Eisenhower as a re-aligner? What nonsense.

[PJ]

I don't like the chart.

[Goldwater]

Though choice between McKinley and Eisenhower, but I went with McKinley.

[Del Tachi]

Thanks for the shout out, Obamanation.

While Eisenhower's victory in 1952 is without a doubt the most consequential election outcome of the 20th Century, it's main effects were somewhat limited to the South.  Of course the increasing Southernization of the U.S. over the following four decades meant that this regional shift in party allegiance had national implications. 

1896 is an interesting case because of the strength of the mandate Congressional Republicans received in '94 followed by the impressive performance of McKinley's two presidential campaigns.  However, 1894-96 represents more of a realignment centered around issues rather than partisan allegiances.  The Civil War/Reconstruction issues of the 1860s finally "dried-up" as Plessy v. Ferguson immortalized Jim Crow; now, economic issues born out of the excess and greed of the Gilded Age were taking center state in a post-Panic of 1893 America.  Unusual though is that the American electorate chose not to "jump ship" and switch parties when these new issues arose - which, for the Democrats, might have just been a case of bad timing.  So, what 1896 represents in not really a realignment but rather the apogee of the 1860-1932 era of Republican dominance. 

2008 has all the right ingredients to be a realigning election:  electorally decisive victory for one party over the other, parties breaking ground in new states or regions while forfeiting some previous strongholds, and a young, charismatic leader to embody the transition.  Moreover, rapidly changing demographic structures may act to "cement" the Democrats advantage among the electorate, and infighting and identity crisis may stop the GOP from effectively competing nationally for the next quarter-century at least.  However, there gare some problems with labeling 2008 as a realignment, namely the 2010 midterm results and the Democrat's lack of a resounding mandate (i.e, 1936, 1972, etc.) in 2012.  Or, 2012 might have been a "wake up call" to a more substantial democratic realignment later down the road, say 2020 or 2024, kind of how Wilson's moderate success in the 1910s foreshadowed FDRs strides in the 1930s..  Only time can tell. 

[Antonio the Sixth]

Realignments are gradual processes that span over one to two decades.