was 1952 a realigning election?

[freepcrusher]

I think it kind of was. It seems this was the election where a good deal of New Deal democrats "got off the train" so to speak and the democrats stopped winning the white vote (which is maybe why civil rights was passed).

[OSR stands with Israel]

no 1968 was, 1952 and 1956 reflected Ike's popularity

Realigning elections since 1896 go like this

1896-1932
1932-1968
1968-1992
1992- Present

[Sir Mohamed]

no 1968 was, 1952 and 1956 reflected Ike's popularity

Realigning elections since 1896 go like this

1896-1932
1932-1968
1968-1992
1992- Present

I would say 1980 was, not 1968.

[The Free North]

no 1968 was, 1952 and 1956 reflected Ike's popularity

Realigning elections since 1896 go like this

1896-1932
1932-1968
1968-1992
1992- Present

Agreed, 1952 was driven largely by Eisenhower's popularity amongst broad segments of the American population. I believe Dems tried to recruit him to be on their ticket as well.

[Thunderbird is the word]

I think that 1952 though was the beginning of the "liberal elitist" stereotype and conservatives beginning to claim there own populist mantle with the checkers speech.

[Mr. Smith]

And yet the whole West [excepting Washington, Oregon, Nevada, and New Mexico] also went to Nixon '60 right after Ike and pretty much refused to give the Democrats a chance sans 1964 until 1992.

Virginia also only voted Democratic ONCE between it and 2008 (the obvious LBJ landslide)

Arizona stopped being a Lean D swing state and didn't vote D again until 1996.

Yeah, there's a case here for '52 being a realignment with stuff like that.

[All Along The Watchtower]

There was also a stronger Republican showing and higher turnout  in at least a few  of the Southern states. I'm thinking of South Carolina in particular.

Eisenhower won the votes of a lot of Democrats, but yeah, most of that was Eisenhower's personal popularity. A beloved and respected war hero, who was a less ideologically rigid Republican who accepted the reality of the post-war welfare state - in addition to being a strong anti-Communist at the height of the Cold War (and specifically the Korean War, which was costing Truman a lot in terms of public support)?

Plus, he had a likable, down-to-earth personality (compare that to Stevenson - the archetypal "liberal egghead") that appealed to a lot of people. "I like Ike."

[Del Tachi]

no 1968 was, 1952 and 1956 reflected Ike's popularity

Realigning elections since 1896 go like this

1896-1932
1932-1968
1968-1992
1992- Present

I would say 1980 was, not 1968.

No, Ronald Reagan's coalition in 1980 was basically the same that elected Nixon in 1968.  Reagan's Conservatism Revolution wouldn't have been possible without the groundwork Nixon laid in 1968.

Realignments go like this:

1789-1800
1800-1860
1860-1896
1896-1932
1932-1968
1968-2008
2008-2048?

[OSR stands with Israel]

no 1968 was, 1952 and 1956 reflected Ike's popularity

Realigning elections since 1896 go like this

1896-1932
1932-1968
1968-1992
1992- Present

I would say 1980 was, not 1968.

1980 was just 1968 without George Wallace,  and Democrats being more unpopular

[OSR stands with Israel]

How exactly was 1992 a realignment?

Democrats lost 5-6 previous elections with 4 of them being landslides and now have the advantage in every election since 1992

[Hydera]

Some realigning aspects is the return of the mountain west/interior vote to the GOP. Truman should of been so unpopular in 1948 that the GOP would of won them back but he managed to win now very conservative states like idaho, utah, wyoming.

Along with the growth of the republican party in the southern suburbs that would precede the GOP dominance in the South.

How exactly was 1992 a realignment?

The West Coast, Rust belt Mid-west and North east would become the defining stronghold of the Democratic party. Although some of that work was done by dukakis.   Also intresting that the same regions were considered traditional republican strongholds in the past. Signaling the complete turnover of ideological voters to a set party. Leftwing+Social Liberals/economic moderates to the Democratic party) and Conservatives firmly to the GOP, when previously the two parties had wings of all the ideological groups only to have it bleed.

[Thunderbird is the word]

In some ways 1952 and 56 almost feel like anomalous elections both within the new deal era and American history as a whole. I'm not sure how it breaks down on a state by state level but it seems like huge chunks of the new deal coalition (working class whites and northern African-Americans) voted for Eisenhower. That era seems like a somewhat anomalous period in US history since it's one of the only brief times aside from the era of good feeling that there was almost a national consensus. I mean obviously Ike had his critics on the left and the right but in general he seems to have been an almost universally popular president and even if you voted for Stevenson it wasn't so earth shattering when he lost.

[bobloblaw]

No. Realigning elections are based on an ideological shift. 1952 was a war hero and an unpopular Truman

[bobloblaw]

no 1968 was, 1952 and 1956 reflected Ike's popularity

Realigning elections since 1896 go like this

1896-1932
1932-1968
1968-1992
1992- Present

I would say 1980 was, not 1968.

1968 was, but it was interrupted by Watergate.

[bobloblaw]

How exactly was 1992 a realignment?

We saw GOP suburbs in places like IL, NY, NJ , CT and CA go Dem.

I think the 1990-91 recession was realigning. While a mild recession, it was the first recession that hit white collar workers hard.

[TheElectoralBoobyPrize]

I've never been a fan of saying 1968 was a realigning election because policy did not move significantly to the right after Nixon's election like it would after Reagan's (also Reagan won the Senate while Nixon did not win either house). Nixon's election was also largely due to splits among Democrats over the Vietnam War and Civil Rights. The New Deal consensus was not threatened as the economy was doing well, unlike 1980.

I suppose 1968 works as a realigning election if you're looking just at presidential elections, but if that's the case, 1952 could still be seen as a realigning election because Republicans would go on to win 6 of the next 9 presidential elections and only in one of those three losses did they lose by a lot.

[/]

You could argue that every election is a realigning election in some regard.

[buritobr]

Realignment in the politics
To the left: 1932
To the right: 1968, 1980, 1994 ?

Realignment in the map
First time: 1960/1964
Reverse: 1976
Definitive: slowly from 1984 to 2004

[bobloblaw]

You could argue that every election is a realigning election in some regard.

Certainly not 1976. It was a fluke election.

[TheElectoralBoobyPrize]

You could argue that every election is a realigning election in some regard.

I don't think ANYONE is arguing that elections where the incumbent president is reelected (or hell, the incumbent PARTY is reelected) are realigning elections.

[Fuzzy Bear]

How exactly was 1992 a realignment?

1992 established the Pacific Coastal states, the Middle Atlantic States (NY, NJ, PA, DE, MD), New England, IL, MI, and WI as a solid Democratic base.

1992 also transformed FL into a swing state.

Prior to 1992, the Democrat's base had been gutted to little more than MA, MN, and DC.  Even MA went Republican for Reagan twice.  The Democrats had no base of states to speak of from 1972-1988; the possibility of a 49 state blowout was always a possibility.  1992 ended that.

[Statilius the Epicurean]

Well...what do you mean by "realigning election"? I've always understood "realignment" to refer to the shifting of constituencies between parties (the classic example being southern whites abandoning the Democrats over civil rights) rather than particular states or regions voting one way or the other. McGovern's coalition in 1972 is pretty much exactly the same as Obama's 40 years later.

[TDAS04]

I'd say no, since the New Deal coalition continued to be strong through the early 1960s. 

[DS0816]

Re: was 1952 a realigning election?

No.

[Nyvin]

I'd say 1968 would be the last realigning election we've had and have been in that cycle ever since really.    It was when the conservatives dropped the Democratic Party and either went third party or to the Republicans.   The exception being 1976 due to Carter.


post images

In 1972 the southern Dixiecrats completely left the Democratic Party....stripping the Democratic Party down to it's current base of voters and nothing else.  

A fluke election occurred in 1976 in the midst of the national confusion and Carter being popular in the South (on the tail of the Watergate Scandal hurting Republicans)

From 1980 to 1988 the Democrats relied on the base of voters they have today and pretty much nothing else for the White House, so they were not competitive in national elections.    The three way election of 1992 saw the Democrat's base expand enough to finally be competitive.  

The Republicans formed an alliance with the southern conservatives and have been a "coalition party" ever since.

The Democrats seeing a gradual growth in their vote totals shows how the Democratic Party really is more of a single population of voters.  The Republicans went through periods of losing voters to third parties and then suddenly gaining them back again later, leading to big spikes and drops.  This leads the Republican vote totals to be more sporadic from election to election.