If Republicans lose the 2016 election

[I Will Not Be Wrong]

Will Jon Huntsman be a viable choice for 2020? I mean, by then surely the GOP would realize that they need to moderate, and Jon Huntsman could be the Bill Clinton for the GOP?
He would only be about sixty years old in 2020.The question is, will the GOP be ready for a nominee that supports same sex marriage by 2020?

[GaussLaw]

No. 

A different thread indicated Huntsman's problems, including his "holier than thou" impression that he exudes. 

Susanna Martinez, Brian Sandoval, and Bill Haslam are all vastly superior choices.

[DC Al Fine]

Assuming your hypothesis is correct, what makes Huntsman so special? By 2020 he'll have been out of office for over a decade. He's not that spectacular a candidate and there's nothing that sets him apart besides his centrism.

If the GOP moderates, it will probably be under someone we've never heard of.

[Del Tachi]

BILL HASLAM 2020!!1!

[Mister Mets]

I don't think Huntsman did that badly in 2012 considering the overlap in potential support between him and the frontrunner. So he could be able to run in the future.

One factor in whether GOP leaders sense a need to moderate would be the circumstances behind a 2016 loss. If Rand Paul loses, the consensus might be that it was due to his unconventional views. If Jeb Bush loses, party leaders might blame the last name. If Ted Cruz loses a close election, the party might decide to give him another shot.

It doesn't seem like nominees are selected as responses to previous nominees. It's usually a figure who has obtained a level of national stature. Nixon was a former Vice President who had become a vocal critic of LBJ, and a strong campaigner in the 1966 midterms. Reagan was a big state Governor who barely lost the previous primary to a sitting President. Bob Dole was a Senate majority leader who had run for President before. George W Bush was the big state Governor son of a President beloved by the business community, who also had appeal to evangelicals. John McCain was the Senator who got the most attention. Mitt Romney was a successful businessman running in a tough economy, with a record as Governor from that state next to New Hampshire, and a campaign infrastructure from an earlier primary.

The 2020 nominee is likely to be selected on their own merits rather than as a response to 2016's nominee.

[Mister Mets]

Huntsman's main shot for prominence is in a Republican presidential administration.

He doesn't have any bully pulpit right now. Even if there's a Senate opening, Utah's primary process rewards conservative activists. Right-wing media positions (IE- Jim Demint's Heritage Foundation gig, Huckabee's Fox News show) favor more conservative voices.

After a 2016 election the party loses, he would have to compete with other voices in the Republican party for attention. That would include sitting Senators, sitting Governors, prominent members of Congress, candidates for major statewide office, the 2016 runner-up (If history is any guide, this guy will be laying the groundwork for an "I told you so" campaign), the 2016 running mate (Say what you will about being on a losing ticket, it raises a politician's profile), conservative celebrities and assorted others positioned for a major bid (Jeb Bush didn't fit any of the earlier categories, but his family name gets him more attention than the typical former Governor.) There will likely be other moderate voices.

[sg0508]

Nope.  We'll get the old, "not conservative enough' nonsense from Sarah Palin's twin.  Rinse/Recycle/Reuse.  Until the GOP realizes it's out of touch with the change in American demographics, they will continue to lose national races.

[Mr. Illini]

I think Rob Portman could come out of nowhere in this scenario more likely.

[TNF]

Why would the GOP moderate? It sets the terms of the debate regardless of how off its rocker it gets. Today's Democratic Party enacts 1990s Republican policies, after all. Why would not the GOP of the 2020s be verging on an even more extremist neoliberal position than it is today? It would guarantee a Democratic Party as right-wing as the Bush administration at the very least.

[Never]

I don't see why the Republicans should moderate. What's the point of being the Democrat-lite party?

Regardless of what happens in 2016, mark my words, the Republicans will win an election in the 2020s.

[Bull Moose Base]

I don't see why the Republicans should moderate. What's the point of being the Democrat-lite party?

Regardless of what happens in 2016, mark my words, the Republicans will win an election in the 2020s.

Well… you know you're party's not in great shape when you feel the need to predict they'll win 1 of the 3 elections that'll happen between 5-15 years from now.

As for the topic of how 2020 would be affected by a 2016 GOP loss, it depends who the losing nominee was.

[Never]

Well… you know you're party's not in great shape when you feel the need to predict they'll win 1 of the 3 elections that'll happen between 5-15 years from now.

Well... I'm not being desperate, I'm just saying that if Republicans lose both presidential elections of this decade, Republicans will win a presidential election in the next one. This thread is assuming that in 2016 the Republicans will lose, so I'm working off of that. If the Republicans have lost three elections in a row, then of course our party isn't in great shape.

One could plausibly say that if the Democrats win in 2016, the Republicans will knock the daylights out of them when they take back the White House. I'm not talking about an election that depends on one state. The GOP would be in good shape to win at least 350 electoral votes, perhaps even 400 on a good night. Generally, incumbent parties gradually lose ground being in power for a long time, and twelve, sixteen, or twenty years of one party holding the White House is indeed a long time.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If the losing 2016 Republican nominee is an establishment candidate, we will probably see a conservative nominee the next time around. On the other hand, if the GOP of 2016 nominates a conservative who loses, then 2020 will probably give us a Republican nominee who acts like he or she is a moderate, but is actually a conservative. That kind of nominee might change their position on one or two issues to make it seem as if the Republicans are moderating, but the base wouldn't change their view. It would be similar to how Bill Clinton acted like a moderate, and even supported and signed a few moderate laws, but was still a liberal in many regards.

No matter which way the Republicans go after 2016, if they have lost that election, they would be due for a win simply because the party would be viewed as the outsiders.

[DS0816]

Well… you know you're party's not in great shape when you feel the need to predict they'll win 1 of the 3 elections that'll happen between 5-15 years from now.

Well... I'm not being desperate, I'm just saying that if Republicans lose both presidential elections of this decade, Republicans will win a presidential election in the next one. This thread is assuming that in 2016 the Republicans will lose, so I'm working off of that. If the Republicans have lost three elections in a row, then of course our party isn't in great shape.

That would inform even the most in-denial Republican that 2008 kicked off a presidential realignment favoring the Democrats.

These realigning periods take up a good 30-plus years in which the out-party wins no more than two or three. That sounds insane to mention...to those who support the party in the minority.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Why would 2008 be the realigning election? 2008 largely followed trends that were established as early as 1988. Obviously there've been some changes for a number of states between then and now, but I still feel like we're operating within that same framework.

[DS0816]

Why would 2008 be the realigning election? 2008 largely followed trends that were established as early as 1988. Obviously there've been some changes for a number of states between then and now, but I still feel like we're operating within that same framework.

See the following:

@ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realigning_election#Realigning_elections_in_United_States_history

@ http://www.hank-edmondson.com/amgovchapt7/realigning-elections.html

Here is just one from this site:

@ https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=26926.0

[Never]

Well… you know you're party's not in great shape when you feel the need to predict they'll win 1 of the 3 elections that'll happen between 5-15 years from now.

Well... I'm not being desperate, I'm just saying that if Republicans lose both presidential elections of this decade, Republicans will win a presidential election in the next one. This thread is assuming that in 2016 the Republicans will lose, so I'm working off of that. If the Republicans have lost three elections in a row, then of course our party isn't in great shape.

That would inform even the most in-denial Republican that 2008 kicked off a presidential realignment favoring the Democrats.

These realigning periods take up a good 30-plus years in which the out-party wins no more than two or three. That sounds insane to mention...to those who support the party in the minority.

Reagan's victories in 1980/84 and Bush 41's victory in 1988 were the last time a party won three elections in a row. This was followed up by two Democratic victories for Clinton, two Republican victories for Bush 43, and two Democratic victories for Obama. That's four out of six for the Democrats (5 out of 6 if we rely on the popular vote instead of the electoral college).

So... do these "realignments" in which a party controls the White House for three terms in a row actually take 30 years for the outside party to recover from? I think not. It appears that Obama's two victories tell us that he had a winning coalition. The likeliest Democratic nominee for 2016 seems to be Hillary Clinton, and if she wins (as would be expected based on what we're seeing right now), she would probably have her own coalition that could very well give her two terms in office, but I doubt that Republicans would be too weak to win as far out as 2024.

Here are some fairly reasonable arguments against realignments:

http://themonkeycage.org/2012/11/12/the-perils-of-democrats-euphoria-or-why-the-2012-election-is-not-a-realignment/

http://www.nationalreview.com/agenda/292327/should-republicans-fear-progressive-realignment-exchange-sean-trende-reihan-salam (I am aware that many people disagree with Sean Trende, but I still feel he should be given the benefit of the doubt.)

[DS0816]

Well… you know you're party's not in great shape when you feel the need to predict they'll win 1 of the 3 elections that'll happen between 5-15 years from now.

Well... I'm not being desperate, I'm just saying that if Republicans lose both presidential elections of this decade, Republicans will win a presidential election in the next one. This thread is assuming that in 2016 the Republicans will lose, so I'm working off of that. If the Republicans have lost three elections in a row, then of course our party isn't in great shape.

That would inform even the most in-denial Republican that 2008 kicked off a presidential realignment favoring the Democrats.

These realigning periods take up a good 30-plus years in which the out-party wins no more than two or three. That sounds insane to mention...to those who support the party in the minority.

Reagan's victories in 1980/84 and Bush 41's victory in 1988 were the last time a party won three elections in a row. This was followed up by two Democratic victories for Clinton, two Republican victories for Bush 43, and two Democratic victories for Obama. That's four out of six for the Democrats (5 out of 6 if we rely on the popular vote instead of the electoral college).

So... do these "realignments" in which a party controls the White House for three terms in a row actually take 30 years for the outside party to recover from? I think not. It appears that Obama's two victories tell us that he had a winning coalition. The likeliest Democratic nominee for 2016 seems to be Hillary Clinton, and if she wins (as would be expected based on what we're seeing right now), she would probably have her own coalition that could very well give her two terms in office, but I doubt that Republicans would be too weak to win as far out as 2024.

Here are some fairly reasonable arguments against realignments:

http://themonkeycage.org/2012/11/12/the-perils-of-democrats-euphoria-or-why-the-2012-election-is-not-a-realignment/

http://www.nationalreview.com/agenda/292327/should-republicans-fear-progressive-realignment-exchange-sean-trende-reihan-salam (I am aware that many people disagree with Sean Trende, but I still feel he should be given the benefit of the doubt.)

We've been living in realigning presidential election periods for nearly the entire duration of electing presidents of the United States. Given the past realigning presidential periods that began in 1800, 1828, 1860, 1896, 1932, and 1968, none of the out-parties of those periods were able prevent the in-parties from having the experience of winning at least three consecutive election cycles. Given most of those realigning presidential periods had run for nine election cycles, it was not mathematically possible for the out-parties to prevent the in-parties from winning three consecutives.

[Never]

Well… you know you're party's not in great shape when you feel the need to predict they'll win 1 of the 3 elections that'll happen between 5-15 years from now.

Well... I'm not being desperate, I'm just saying that if Republicans lose both presidential elections of this decade, Republicans will win a presidential election in the next one. This thread is assuming that in 2016 the Republicans will lose, so I'm working off of that. If the Republicans have lost three elections in a row, then of course our party isn't in great shape.

That would inform even the most in-denial Republican that 2008 kicked off a presidential realignment favoring the Democrats.

These realigning periods take up a good 30-plus years in which the out-party wins no more than two or three. That sounds insane to mention...to those who support the party in the minority.

Reagan's victories in 1980/84 and Bush 41's victory in 1988 were the last time a party won three elections in a row. This was followed up by two Democratic victories for Clinton, two Republican victories for Bush 43, and two Democratic victories for Obama. That's four out of six for the Democrats (5 out of 6 if we rely on the popular vote instead of the electoral college).

So... do these "realignments" in which a party controls the White House for three terms in a row actually take 30 years for the outside party to recover from? I think not. It appears that Obama's two victories tell us that he had a winning coalition. The likeliest Democratic nominee for 2016 seems to be Hillary Clinton, and if she wins (as would be expected based on what we're seeing right now), she would probably have her own coalition that could very well give her two terms in office, but I doubt that Republicans would be too weak to win as far out as 2024.

Here are some fairly reasonable arguments against realignments:

http://themonkeycage.org/2012/11/12/the-perils-of-democrats-euphoria-or-why-the-2012-election-is-not-a-realignment/

http://www.nationalreview.com/agenda/292327/should-republicans-fear-progressive-realignment-exchange-sean-trende-reihan-salam (I am aware that many people disagree with Sean Trende, but I still feel he should be given the benefit of the doubt.)

We've been living in realigning presidential election periods for nearly the entire duration of electing presidents of the United States. Given the past realigning presidential periods that began in 1800, 1828, 1860, 1896, 1932, and 1968, none of the out-parties of those periods were able prevent the in-parties from having the experience of winning at least three consecutive election cycles. Given most of those realigning presidential periods had run for nine election cycles, it was not mathematically possible for the out-parties to prevent the in-parties from winning three consecutives.

Republicans did not win three consecutive elections starting in 1968. Richard Nixon won in '68 and '72, resigned due to Watergate in his second term, and Republican Gerald Ford was not able to keep Democrat Jimmy Carter from winning the White House in 1976, but I think I see what you are saying: between 1968 and 1988, Republicans won 5 out of 6 presidential elections, so you view 1968 as a realignment.

FDR is a unique case. For one, he was able to win election to the presidency four times in a row, which is not permitted anymore due to the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution, enacted in response to Roosevelt serving in office much longer than any other president.

I, for one, argue that FDR shows us that elections are significantly affected by the perception of the incumbent. Since Americans liked Roosevelt as an individual, naturally they would keep re-electing him to office over his opponents. That has a great deal to do with how this coalition remained intact for such a long time, though even his coalition weakened during his time in office; going from 57.4% of the popular vote and 472 electoral votes (out of 531 EVs at the time) in 1932 to 54.7% of the PV and 449 EVs in 1940, and finally having his weakest performance in 1944, with 53.3% of the PV and 432 EVs, despite America participating in WWII at the time, the success of which should have proven to be a benefit to Roosevelt. Ultimately, the coalition that elected Roosevelt four times almost faltered under Truman and ultimately ended when Eisenhower patched together a majority as he was elected to the presidency in 1952. While we could in theory argue that a Democratic coalition held from 1932 until 1968, it's worth noting that Democrat John F. Kennedy's defeat of Republican Vice President Nixon was quite narrow, and that the election of 1964 being in the shadow of Kennedy's assassination probably means that we should not read too much into Lyndon Johnson's defeat of Goldwater that year.

[TarHeelDem]

will the GOP be ready for a nominee that supports same sex marriage by 2020?

No. I think 2024 is the earliest presidential race we could see that.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Why would 2008 be the realigning election? 2008 largely followed trends that were established as early as 1988. Obviously there've been some changes for a number of states between then and now, but I still feel like we're operating within that same framework.

See the following:

@ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realigning_election#Realigning_elections_in_United_States_history

@ http://www.hank-edmondson.com/amgovchapt7/realigning-elections.html

Here is just one from this site:

@ https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=26926.0

Thank you so much for posting a bunch of links instead of actually engaging with my point. I love when that happens.

[7,052,770]

Only if Republicans nominate Ted Cruz or another Tea Party hero in 2016. Anyone else and the usual suspects will swear they lost because they weren't conservative enough.

[DS0816]

Why would 2008 be the realigning election? 2008 largely followed trends that were established as early as 1988. Obviously there've been some changes for a number of states between then and now, but I still feel like we're operating within that same framework.

See the following:

@ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realigning_election#Realigning_elections_in_United_States_history

@ http://www.hank-edmondson.com/amgovchapt7/realigning-elections.html

Here is just one from this site:

@ https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=26926.0

Thank you so much for posting a bunch of links instead of actually engaging with my point. I love when that happens.

You seriously don't understand why 2008 was a realigning presidential election?

[DS0816]

Well… you know you're party's not in great shape when you feel the need to predict they'll win 1 of the 3 elections that'll happen between 5-15 years from now.

Well... I'm not being desperate, I'm just saying that if Republicans lose both presidential elections of this decade, Republicans will win a presidential election in the next one. This thread is assuming that in 2016 the Republicans will lose, so I'm working off of that. If the Republicans have lost three elections in a row, then of course our party isn't in great shape.

That would inform even the most in-denial Republican that 2008 kicked off a presidential realignment favoring the Democrats.

These realigning periods take up a good 30-plus years in which the out-party wins no more than two or three. That sounds insane to mention...to those who support the party in the minority.

Reagan's victories in 1980/84 and Bush 41's victory in 1988 were the last time a party won three elections in a row. This was followed up by two Democratic victories for Clinton, two Republican victories for Bush 43, and two Democratic victories for Obama. That's four out of six for the Democrats (5 out of 6 if we rely on the popular vote instead of the electoral college).

So... do these "realignments" in which a party controls the White House for three terms in a row actually take 30 years for the outside party to recover from? I think not. It appears that Obama's two victories tell us that he had a winning coalition. The likeliest Democratic nominee for 2016 seems to be Hillary Clinton, and if she wins (as would be expected based on what we're seeing right now), she would probably have her own coalition that could very well give her two terms in office, but I doubt that Republicans would be too weak to win as far out as 2024.

Here are some fairly reasonable arguments against realignments:

http://themonkeycage.org/2012/11/12/the-perils-of-democrats-euphoria-or-why-the-2012-election-is-not-a-realignment/

http://www.nationalreview.com/agenda/292327/should-republicans-fear-progressive-realignment-exchange-sean-trende-reihan-salam (I am aware that many people disagree with Sean Trende, but I still feel he should be given the benefit of the doubt.)

We've been living in realigning presidential election periods for nearly the entire duration of electing presidents of the United States. Given the past realigning presidential periods that began in 1800, 1828, 1860, 1896, 1932, and 1968, none of the out-parties of those periods were able prevent the in-parties from having the experience of winning at least three consecutive election cycles. Given most of those realigning presidential periods had run for nine election cycles, it was not mathematically possible for the out-parties to prevent the in-parties from winning three consecutives.

Republicans did not win three consecutive elections starting in 1968. Richard Nixon won in '68 and '72, resigned due to Watergate in his second term, and Republican Gerald Ford was not able to keep Democrat Jimmy Carter from winning the White House in 1976, but I think I see what you are saying: between 1968 and 1988, Republicans won 5 out of 6 presidential elections, so you view 1968 as a realignment.

FDR is a unique case. For one, he was able to win election to the presidency four times in a row, which is not permitted anymore due to the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution, enacted in response to Roosevelt serving in office much longer than any other president.

I, for one, argue that FDR shows us that elections are significantly affected by the perception of the incumbent. Since Americans liked Roosevelt as an individual, naturally they would keep re-electing him to office over his opponents. That has a great deal to do with how this coalition remained intact for such a long time, though even his coalition weakened during his time in office; going from 57.4% of the popular vote and 472 electoral votes (out of 531 EVs at the time) in 1932 to 54.7% of the PV and 449 EVs in 1940, and finally having his weakest performance in 1944, with 53.3% of the PV and 432 EVs, despite America participating in WWII at the time, the success of which should have proven to be a benefit to Roosevelt. Ultimately, the coalition that elected Roosevelt four times almost faltered under Truman and ultimately ended when Eisenhower patched together a majority as he was elected to the presidency in 1952. While we could in theory argue that a Democratic coalition held from 1932 until 1968, it's worth noting that Democrat John F. Kennedy's defeat of Republican Vice President Nixon was quite narrow, and that the election of 1964 being in the shadow of Kennedy's assassination probably means that we should not read too much into Lyndon Johnson's defeat of Goldwater that year.

What causes a realignment is at least an event, at least a catalyst, that turns the electorate at large to favor the opposition party and stick with them for about two-thirds to three-fourths of the election cycles over the next generation or so. We've seen, with 1860, 1896, and 1932, seven of nine go to one party. With 1968, the cycle went to ten (with the formerly out- and newly in-party ending up with winning seven).

Part of it is with the electoral map having an incredible advantage to the in-party. The path to winning the Electoral College. (The electoral-vote scores of realigning presidential winners isn't as significant as you may think. The 2008 and 2012 Barack Obama looks more similar to the 1896 and 1900 William McKinley in terms of their numbers and percentages of their carriages of available states.) Using the Republican-vs.-Democratic parties matchups that began when the former got their first candidate elected (16th president Abraham Lincoln in 1860), each period has seen this bare out.

A realigning period doesn't have to mirror a previous one on all the levels you'd like, such as with concern to majority control of one or both houses of Congress. It's dealing strictly with the election winnings of the presidency of the United States.

A recap of R-vs.-D:

1860: Republicans won seven of nine from 1860 to 1892 (leaving the only Democratic wins in 1884 and 1892)
1896: Republicans won seven of nine from 1896 to 1928 (leaving the only Democratic wins in 1912 and 1916)
1932: Democrats won seven of nine from 1932 to 1964 (leaving the only Republican wins in 1952 and 1956)
1968: Republicans won seven of not nine but ten from 1968 to 2004 (leaving the trio of Democratic wins from 1976, 1992, and 1996)
2008: Democrats have, thus far, won the first two of 2008 and 2012 (and the rest of the cycles are pending)

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Why would 2008 be the realigning election? 2008 largely followed trends that were established as early as 1988. Obviously there've been some changes for a number of states between then and now, but I still feel like we're operating within that same framework.

See the following:

@ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realigning_election#Realigning_elections_in_United_States_history

@ http://www.hank-edmondson.com/amgovchapt7/realigning-elections.html

Here is just one from this site:

@ https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=26926.0

Thank you so much for posting a bunch of links instead of actually engaging with my point. I love when that happens.

You seriously don't understand why 2008 was a realigning presidential election?

I understand why someone who's only interested in shiny things might think it looks like a realigning election, but 2008 didn't really flip anything on its head. Sure, 2008 pushed the Democrats over the threshold and built up favourable territory for future national candidates, but it didn't come out of the blue. The results built on Gore and Kerry's showings, which, for all intents and purposes, were pretty damn strong. A realigning election represents a dramatic change from one status quo to a new status quo. For 2008 to be considered a realigning election, you've got to first believe that the United States was in a period of Republican dominance. I'm sorry, but I don't believe that was the case: Gore won the popular vote in '00 and Bush's win in '04 was a squeaker. The country has been pretty Democratic, at least in terms of presidential elections, since 1992.

In fact, if you look at where the Democrats won in '92, '96, '00, '04, '08, and even '12, it's pretty much in all the same places. Clinton changed the map, Bush filled it in red for a bit, and Obama took some states back for the Dems. Obviously a few things have changed over the course of 20 years (West Virginia and Kentucky won't be voting for Democratic presidents any time soon, and I expect Virginia is slipping away from Republicans), but those are blips on the radar compared to the big picture. Clinton started this Democratic era. Hell, the Dukakis strongholds still form the anchors of the map for Democrats. I'll admit that Obama has strengthened his party's position for a couple more cycles, but I have a hard time agreeing that he just came down from the heavens and "realigned" everything.

[DS0816]

Why would 2008 be the realigning election? 2008 largely followed trends that were established as early as 1988. Obviously there've been some changes for a number of states between then and now, but I still feel like we're operating within that same framework.

See the following:

@ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realigning_election#Realigning_elections_in_United_States_history

@ http://www.hank-edmondson.com/amgovchapt7/realigning-elections.html

Here is just one from this site:

@ https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=26926.0

Thank you so much for posting a bunch of links instead of actually engaging with my point. I love when that happens.

You seriously don't understand why 2008 was a realigning presidential election?

I understand why someone who's only interested in shiny things might think it looks like a realigning election, but 2008 didn't really flip anything on its head. Sure, 2008 pushed the Democrats over the threshold and built up favourable territory for future national candidates, but it didn't come out of the blue. The results built on Gore and Kerry's showings, which, for all intents and purposes, were pretty damn strong. A realigning election represents a dramatic change from one status quo to a new status quo. For 2008 to be considered a realigning election, you've got to first believe that the United States was in a period of Republican dominance. I'm sorry, but I don't believe that was the case: Gore won the popular vote in '00 and Bush's win in '04 was a squeaker. The country has been pretty Democratic, at least in terms of presidential elections, since 1992.

In fact, if you look at where the Democrats won in '92, '96, '00, '04, '08, and even '12, it's pretty much in all the same places. Clinton changed the map, Bush filled it in red for a bit, and Obama took some states back for the Dems. Obviously a few things have changed over the course of 20 years (West Virginia and Kentucky won't be voting for Democratic presidents any time soon, and I expect Virginia is slipping away from Republicans), but those are blips on the radar compared to the big picture. Clinton started this Democratic era. Hell, the Dukakis strongholds still form the anchors of the map for Democrats. I'll admit that Obama has strengthened his party's position for a couple more cycles, but I have a hard time agreeing that he just came down from the heavens and "realigned" everything.

You do not understand the topic, let alone the profound history, of realigning United States presidential elections. I'm not referring to having a focus exclusively on the electoral map. Realigning presidential elections happen because some event serves as the catalyst that loses the electorate's trust with the White House party in power when that event, that catalyst, strikes. It certainly happened, for example, with the Great Depression on the watch of a Republican president [Herbert Hoover] that brought in a realigning Democratic period with Election 1932 [with Franklin Roosevelt]. Another realignment emerged with the Vietnam War on the watch of a Democratic president [Lyndon Johnson] that brought in a realigning Republican period with Election 1968 [Richard Nixon]. And I'm adding to those examples that the Iraq War and the economic meltdown on the watch of a Republican president [George W. Bush] has given us our newest and current Democratic realigning period effective with Election 2008 [Barack Obama].