Was 2016 a realigning election

[BigVic]

Trump states won
Wisconsin - last won by Reagan in 1984 (won
Michigan - last won by George H W Bush in 1988
Pennsylvania - last won by George H W Bush in 1988

Clinton came close in
Arizona - won 44.58% of the vote
Texas - won 43.24% of the vote
Georgia - won 45.35% of the vote

These three states had all voted Democratic prior to 1992. Before Election Night, no-one except Trump himself believed he will PA, MI and WI. 2016 was a realigning election but not significant.

[Virginiá]

Not really, no. There are plenty of explanations, but today I'll go with this: Look at the presidential election in 2000, and Trump's wins in WI/MI/PA won't seem that game-changing. Bush lost WI by less than 6 thousand votes, and MI/PA were within 4-6 points. Minnesota was within 2.5 points. AZ within ~6. Trump did really well with a certain group of people (WWCs) who were concentrated in certain states, and he drew a candidate that really didn't fare well with this group either.

At most I think all of this is most significant as some regional trends but not close to any sort of realigning event.

[The_Doctor]

No. Realigning Presidents overturn an older established order and they do it with a large majority. They change the composition of their political coalitions drastically. And they usually have a large mandate to break through the gridlock and crisis. The realigning presidencies are usually transformative.

1800, 1860, 1932, and 1980 were all realigning elections. I let Jefferson slide on some of these criteria as it was basically the first alignment and the founding of the Republic. But the other three fulfill the criteria.

Also as far as confirming elections (elections that specifically confirm the realignment) go (1828, 1896, 1960, 2000/2004); the data is more murky. But I would say the 2% popular vote loss and the weak support Trump has from institutional Republicans suggest that he's not a confirming president either. Bush is a much stronger candidate to be the confirming President to the neoliberal Reagan realignment.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

Not really; this seems to be a continuation of Bush-2000 and up trends more than anything. And (unlike FDR and his New Deal liberalism), Trump does not seem to be governing as a big ideological innovator. There wasn't a huge constituency-wise shakeup in the grand scheme of things; the state-by-state correlation with 2012 was .94.

I consider Reagan to be a realigning president (moving the GOP to the right) in the middle of a party system established by Kennedy and Nixon.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

No, because we have basically the same map as the Dems losses in 2000 and 2004, due to an ethically challenged Hillary Clinton bad candidacy.

In 2020, Dems will assume power once again and reaffirm MI, WI, PA, CO, NV and NM

[Sumner 1868]

TEXAS WAS NOT CLOSE

Arizona isn't really a good bet. Democrats literally the same level of support in the state since 2000. For every Hispanic that enters two white Republicans move in and immigration to the state has slowed down considerably since 2010. It could vote narrowly Democratic in a good year but the advantage is lean R for the indefinite future.

[Person Man]

TEXAS WAS NOT CLOSE

Arizona isn't really a good bet. Democrats literally the same level of support in the state since 2000. For every Hispanic that enters two white Republicans move in and immigration to the state has slowed down considerably since 2010. It could vote narrowly Democratic in a good year but the advantage is lean R for the indefinite future.

Same dynamic in Florida?  Or the general Republican strategy?
For every 25 year old programmer or artist or creative type or immigrant that moves in, there is at least another 60 year old near-millionaire evangelical from Michigan or Tennessee that moves in.  And a few of those prgrammers or immigrants are Mormon, Pentacostal, or Alt-Right.

[cvparty]

no, the so-called "blue wall" was never really that, and trump only won PA, MI, and WI by less than 1%. 2016 was more of a progression of trends, not a defining election

[libertpaulian]

TEXAS WAS NOT CLOSE

Arizona isn't really a good bet. Democrats literally the same level of support in the state since 2000. For every Hispanic that enters two white Republicans move in and immigration to the state has slowed down considerably since 2010. It could vote narrowly Democratic in a good year but the advantage is lean R for the indefinite future.

Texas was quite close given its voting patterns since Reagan.

[pbrower2a]

No. It's too much like 2004. Take the 2004 map and give Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Maine-02 but give Colorado and Virginia to the Democrat and you have the result. Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin decided the election and by narrow margins.  Five states, three one way and two the other.

2020 will likely be the realigning election if Donald Trump or Mike Pence wins in a landslide, because such will show the permanence of Republican gains -- gains big enough to make the Republican Party the only game in town.  Either Donald Trump has solved all the problems that he said he would solve or his opposition has given up completely and decided that a fundamentalist-Christian and plutocratic America is all that is possible.

I see evidence that President Trump is extremely unpopular in Iowa, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Florida, states that Obama won twice but Trump won in 2016, and North Carolina (which Obama won in 2008).

Realignments are not fluke elections. The 2016 Presidential election already  looks like a fluke. Americans do not like the results, as shown by Gallup and most other tracking polls.

Should the Democrat win back Florida, Iowa, Michigan, and Pennsylvania (probably Ohio and Wisconsin, as I have no polls for those two states, then we are back to the Obama maps as the norm unless we see a bunch of states returning to or joining the Democratic column. But I wouldn't bet against polls emerging that show Donald Trump is doing badly in those states.

   

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Its not a realignment election because WI, PA and MI went red instead of blue.  They will be blue again once more and they are Democratic Swing States in presidential elections.  Like in Governorships, which they sometimes vote GOP as well.

[Mr. Smith]

If you consider 1988 or 1928 realigning, then sure.

[LLR]

Yeah, not quite yet.

[Fuzzy Bear]

GA, AZ, and TX have been moving toward the Democrats due to demographic changes.  Of the 2012 Obama states, only OH has been manifesting a definitive trend toward the GOP (in the way MO has).  GA becomes more black; it's move toward the Democrats is part of an ongoing shift.  AZ and TX are becoming more Hispanic, but it is not certain that some of their shift is due to Hispanic Republicans there NOT voting for Trump that would return to the GOP for another Presidential candidate, or who may support Trump in 2020 should he resolve his issues with the Mexican-American community in those states (not out of the question).

I view the results in IA, PA, MI, and the closeness of MN to be unique reactions to the specific appeals Trump made to a specific group of voters common to those states (white, mostly unionized, workers who have endured displacement).  NAFTA has the Clintons' fingerprints on it and those voters blame NAFTA for their problems.  This election shows the "potential" for realignment, but realignment won't occur until these voters reject the Democratic party for good.  This is not a given, but it is a possibility.