Realigning elections

[jokerman]

I consider the 1980 a re-alignment.  Granted Reagan won almost every state, but it stays consistant that the states that he won the least amount of vote (yet still won) are the ones that Gore and Kerry won more recently.  And same applies to what George W Bush has (the Reagan states with most support).  

That's not entirely true.  Reagan barely squeaked by in a lot of southern states that Bush carried with large majorities, states like South Carolina, Alabama, Tennessee, etc.  In fact, 1980 was the last election in which the Democrats had a larger percentage of the vote in the south than in the nation as a whole.

Still, I agree that it was a realigning election.  Many of the southern states that Reagan won by the barest of margins have been voting Republican ever since, with increasing Republican majorities.

I have said that I thought 1992 was a realigning election, in that the Democrats picked up a lot of states that they hadn't been able to win for a long time, and have held onto them.  But on second thought, I consider 2000 to be the real realigning election.  It is in the 2000 election that the whole blue state-red state split became most apparent.  In both 1992 and 1996, the loss of Republican support in areas that they had long carried could be blamed on weak candidates, economic circumstances, etc., in other words, temporary factors, and not a real realignment.  But in 2000, it became apparent that certain states had strongly shifted to the Democrats, and would vote Democratic regardless of circumstances.

Tragically, this includes my current home state of Connecticut.  After being at worse a swing state, and leaning Republican in quite a few electons, Connecticut was a solid Democratic state by 2000.   New York went from being a left-leaning swing state to a strongly Democratic state, as the city became more strongly Democratic than ever, and the previously Republican suburbs switched to Democratic.  In 1988, Dukakis carried New York, with about 51% of the vote.  This was the old pattern in New York; it was under normal circumstances carried by the Democrats with a small margin, and was competitive under certain circumstances.  But by 2000, the Democrats were getting 60% of the vote.  By the same token, southern states shifted sharply to the Republicans.

I think this realignment tentatively began in 1992, as the end of the cold war lessened the perceived for many to vote Republican because they didn't trust the Democrats on national defense.  It accelerated during the Clinton years as certain issues that got the Republicans votes faded away, such as resentment of welfare and rampant crime.  I also think that the Lewinsky matter helped solidify this realignment, as it laid bare the huge differences in attitude toward religion and morality in different sections of the country.  I think the Clinton era emboldened aggressively anti-morality and anti-Christian liberals, and in certain states, and discussion of right, wrong or character became taboo.  Liberals had been on the defensive for some time, and the Clinton era put them back on the offensive, in a nasty and hateful way.  This is one of the worst consequences of the Clinton presidency in my opinion, and has led to the divisive realignment of the 2000 election, with the 2004 election being basically a re-run of 2000.

Time will tell whether the current state of political affairs continues.  I hope it does not, because the number of states which are competitive in presidential elections is ridiculously low at this point.

Did my work for me, Dazzleman,

Yes, you are indeed correct.  Let me remind the forum of the county map in 1980:

[dazzleman]

thanks Preston

[MaC]

Dazzleman, I have to say with 1992, it is also a re-alignment that complemented 1980 to make 2000 competitive.  Reagan and Clinton will be remembered as the Republican and Democratic claims to fame of this era.  The 1980 laid framework and the 1992 filled in the blanks to give us a compelation of the 2000/2004 maps.  I do have to say however (and re-assert my point) that 1964 was a realignment for the south.  Barry Goldwater only won six states, but those who did vote for him, generally went landslide for him.  Without Goldwater, Reagan might not have won those southern states.

[Frodo]

1800 could be considered the first realigning election, as Jefferson broke the Federalist control on the Northeast by winning New York.  This set the Federalist into a decline from which they never recovered, and pushed the country towards the Era of Good Feelings.

1828 was the next realigning election.  Jackson's election to the presidency could be considered the first time a candidate was elected with support of the common people versus a candidate (Adams) who was supported by the rich and powerful.  In short, it was the first election along social lines and split the Northeast from the West and South.

1860 was a major realigning election, as for the first time the country was truly split in half along party lines.  The Deep South states voted for the Southern Democrat while the North voted for the candidate of the new Republican Party.  It also saw the end of the Whig Party and the Whigs' move to the Republicans.

1896 was a realigning election in that it pitted the farmers and populists against the big-business interests from the East.  Although the Republicans maintained control, they would continue to develop their stance as the party of business, and they would remain in power until the early 1930s.

1932 -Although PBrunsel marks 1928 as the realigning election, the fact is that after 1928 Republicans remained in control to some degree.  The 1932 election saw the formation of the New Deal coalition of Catholics, Southerners, Westerners, minorities, and labor unions.  This coalition would be the core of the Democratic Party until it began to unravel in the early '80s.

1968 I consider this to be also a realigning election because Nixon formally adopted the Southern Strategy for Republican presidential candidates and solidified those states that Goldwater won in '64 into the Republican column.  The South began its swing from Democratic stronghold to Sunbelt Republican territory, not fully transforming at the state level until 26 years later.


Republicans may argue that 1980 and 1994 midterms were also realigning elections, but I think they are just repercussions of the 1968 election.  1994 and 2002 might also have been signs that the Republican domination of politics is at its peak (like the Democrats in 1964 election and the 1974 midterms).  I expect that the next realigning election will occur in the next sixteen years or so, depending on what happens with Iraq and terrorism and also if the Dems can shift their strategy on social issues.

I agree with all of those.  1968 is probably the biggest realigning election in recent times.

Between 1968 and today there has been a gradual realignment of the Mississippi/Missouri Valley to the Republicans and the coastal suburbs to the Democrats.  SD, IA, WI, MN, MO, and AR and TN, especially the rural parts of those states, have shifted right.  NJ, CT, NH, DE, and CA, as well as suburban parts of NY, MI, and IL (the "third coast") have shifted left.

This is a consequence of Dem/Rep dichotomy shifting almost completely from an economic split to a social split.  This is the "realignment" of the last 30 years.  Therefore 2000 could be seen as a realigning election, as it solidified the Republican hold of the heartland, and the Democrat hold of the coasts.

I disagree -the 2000 election simply reflected the changes that had begun to occur thirty-two years earlier, as with 1980, 1994, 2002, and 2004. 

We have not seen a realigning election since 1968, as of yet, though it could be argued that what we witnessed this year with the return of working-class Reagan Democrats (or at least their progeny) back to the Democratic fold could portend a realignment either in 2008 or sometime within the next decade. 

[Gustaf]

Some ideas here are absurd...1980 was hardly indicative of anything. It was just a result of running a popular Republican against an impopular Democrat in the environment that had existed since the 60s. The real realignements are 1968, when the South shifted away from the Democrats in a more definite manner and 1992, when Clinton realigned suburban social liberals, bringing states like California and New Jersey into the Democratic camp.

And counting the Northeast in a more traditional, reasonable manner, Ford did quite well there, winning 5 out of 8 states. Back in the 70s the country was dealigned, so that between 1964 and 1976 all states except Arizona voted Democrat at least once and all states except Massachusetts voted Republican at least once. In the Ford Carter election small regional shifts could have made the electoral map look very different than it actually did.

[Padfoot]

Everyone keeps citing the 1968 election as the big realignment but I think that the real big one was 1964 and it all hinges on the passage of a single law in Congress.  The Civil Rights Act of 1964.  The South went Republican because the Democrats shattered their own coalition by forcing the Civil Rights Acts through Congress making it easy for Nixon to pick up the pieces in 1968.
The reason the 1964 election was so huge is that even though it was a Democratic landslide, they failed to win the base they had relied on since Reconstruction: the South.  That base was so reliable that it was commonly referred to as the Solid South at the time.  The most striking example of this is Mississippi which gave Goldwater a whopping 87% of the vote.  I would say that if an entire region suddenly undergoes a 20 point flop from one party to the other after 100 years of loyalty you have to call it a realignment. 

[ndcohn]

I think that a better way to think of 1964 is that it was a "dealigning" election for the south.

The south was fully aligned with the democrats until 1964 when it rejected the democrats, but had not yet been captured by the republicans. This is demonstrated by Wallaces strength in 1968, Nixon's southern strength in 1972, and Carter's strength in 1976. Meanwhile, the northeast/industrial midwest remained a swing zone, while the west was firmly republican. Even in 1980, [if i knew how to post pictures i would, but instead you should look at the democratic map for 1980], it appears the south is still 'dealigned' as carter performed better there then he did in the rest of the country.

It seems then that 1984 was the beginning of a long realigning period continuing all the way through 2004 that brought urban areas/northeast/upper midwest/pacific coast to the democrats, and the south/interior west to the GOP.
Look at the 1984 map for the democrats - something about the 1984 campaign/the first years of Reagans presidency began to tug the states we now refer to as "blue", relatively, towards mondale, and the "red states" towards Reagan. In the 1988 these trends continue - Dukhakis wins the pacific northwest, the uppermidwest, and parts of new england. 1992's southern democratic ticket of clinton/gore clouds this pattern - as it gives the democrats an inflated advantage in the lower mississippi, but in 1992 you can see the decisive shift in cosmopolitian states like california [Clinton +14], though not others like CT [Clinton +7], or NJ [Clinton +2]. In 1996 however, the remaining states northern states were realigned towards the democrats [CT/NJ/IL voted +18 for Clinton, or 9 points to the left of the nation].

Given this, it seems to me like 1992-1996 realigned the blue states, but the strong regional ticket of gore/clinton apparently kept the south divided - and led certain states like LA/AK/TN to strongly the democrats.

I think that, retrospectively, there is an argument that 2000 was a surprisingly key election.
the perot voters had been dislodged from either party. A candidate who could co-opt that vote could be realigning.
A democrat who could maintain their edge in the north and keep the south competitive would have triggered a full democratic realignment [imagine if the democrats came into every election with around 250 electoral votes, and the GOP had about 150, and they had to win every swing state!].

Ultimately, Bush's cultural appeals to the south combined with Gore's secularism prevented democratic realignment - as the south was strongly brought to the GOP while Gore maintained the north - thus completing the realignment of the south which began in 1964 and bringing us to a divided nation.

So i would say that 1964 was dealigning for the south.
1984-1996 realigned the "blue states" to the dems, though without a decisive election like 1964. The 2000 election cemented this.
2000 finally completed the realignment of the south.

[Padfoot]

Very nicely put ndcohn.  I would have to agree 100% with what you just said.  Based on trends in the past 4 presidential elections and current population predictions I would say we are in for another realignment located in the Interior West if the Democrats are smart and don't nominate another New England Liberal.

If the current population trends hold, I also predict Ohio will be much less important in 2012.  Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, and Arizona are going to become the new battelground states as their electoral power grows and Ohio's continues to shrink.  Another possibility is that the Mid-Atlantic Coast could begin trending Democratic.  Virginia and North Carolina could become more competitive down the line if the 2006 election was any indication of where those states are headed.

[TakeOurCountryBack]

Very nicely put ndcohn.  I would have to agree 100% with what you just said.  Based on trends in the past 4 presidential elections and current population predictions I would say we are in for another realignment located in the Interior West if the Democrats are smart and don't nominate another New England Liberal.

If the current population trends hold, I also predict Ohio will be much less important in 2012.  Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, and Arizona are going to become the new battelground states as their electoral power grows and Ohio's continues to shrink.  Another possibility is that the Mid-Atlantic Coast could begin trending Democratic.  Virginia and North Carolina could become more competitive down the line if the 2006 election was any indication of where those states are headed.

I agree.  I don't think there's any question that AZ, NM, CO, and NV are going to be the big swing states of the near future.  If current trends continue, expect the Northeast to become solid for the Democrats, even more so than the South is for the GOP now.  The Midwest will probably move towards the GOP a little, making states like MI and WI more of a struggle for the Dems.  The Interior/Deep South will become the strong GOP area (KY, TN, GA, AL, MS, SC, LA, and I would say maybe even FL).  And the big swing areas will be VA and NC, and the aforementioned Western states.  Some Democrats expect Texas to move in our direction, and point to the fact that the GOP has been nominating Texans for the past 20 years.  I'd say don't count on it.  Is there one statewide elected Democrat in Texas?  I'm not sure, but if there are it's not many.  And that gorwing Hispanic population isn't going to stick with the Democrats forever if the GOP continues it's move towards populism.  The Hispanic population may be more socially conservative than the Southern whites.  This is what I see for the 2016 election, provided it's dead even. 



Some interesting ones:

Pennsylvania - STRONG DEM - Yes, I think within 10 years, this state will be as solid for the Dems as say, Washington is now.  All you have to look at is the Philly suburbs.  Mongomery County, one of the richest in the nation and for the longest time strongly Republican, just gave Ed Rendell over 70% of their vote, a 10% swing to the left.  That's insane. 

Florida - LEAN GOP - Two trends hurt the Democrats here.  One, the influx of older Americans I believe helps the GOP, whose beliefs are more traditional.  Two, the Hispanic shift towards the GOP that I believe will happen.

Colorado - LEAN DEM - The growth of those liberal ski areas and cities like Denver will push this state in the Democrats' direction pretty soon.  Maybe as soon as 2008.  Remember, this is a state Dole won. 

New Hampshire - STRONG DEM - the next Vermont, 'nuff said.

North Carolina - LEAN GOP - this state is too solidly GOP now to move that far in just 10 years.  It's gorwing fast, but it's going to take a long time before it becomes a true tossup, if it ever does.   

[Padfoot]

I'm not quite convinced that the Midwest is trending Republican takeourcountryback.  If the 2006 election was any indication, the Midwest is trending Democrat.  Actually, I take that back.  I think what is happening here is that the entire Midwest is in flux.  Those states that traditionally break Republican are trending towards Democrats and vice versa.  People are looking for someone to blame for the bad economy here due to the loss of manufacturing jobs.  The party in power is an easy target.

[TakeOurCountryBack]

I'm not quite convinced that the Midwest is trending Republican takeourcountryback.  If the 2006 election was any indication, the Midwest is trending Democrat.  Actually, I take that back.  I think what is happening here is that the entire Midwest is in flux.  Those states that traditionally break Republican are trending towards Democrats and vice versa.  People are looking for someone to blame for the bad economy here due to the loss of manufacturing jobs.  The party in power is an easy target.

I think all that's just a slight deviation off the trend.  Long term, over a decade or so, this area is going to be very friendly to the GOP, provided they continue being conservative socially and move a tad to the left economically.  I personally can't believe Kerry was able to take Wisconsin in 2004.  The polls made it seem like a sure thing for Bush (+10 for him there at one point I believe)

[Mideast Assemblyman Ben for Senate]

1800
1828
1860
1896
1932
1948
1968
1980

[MarkWarner08]

1800
1828
1860
1896
1932
1968 (political realignment-- American begins to move rightward)
1980 (ideological realignment -- America elects hard-line conservative President)
2008

[Frodo]

1800: Democratic-Republicans take over, power shifts from New England to the South, and spells the end of the first two-party system as the Federalists never again regain either the presidency or Congress, and towards the end of this period, the latter shall dissolve entirely after the end of the War of 1812.  Also known as the period of the 'Virginia dynasty'.

1828: Andrew Jackson's presidency heralds the beginning of a more democratic era in American politics, and the second period of a two-party system as the Democratic and Whig parties battle it out. 

1860: With the dissolving of the Whig Party over slavery in the wake of the Kansas-Nebraska Act and Dred Scott decision, a new political era opens with the beginning of the third (and current) period of a two-party system as Republicans first begin to establish their ascendancy as they battle it out with Democrats during and after the Civil War.

1896: As Civil War-era issues begin to fade, a new paradigm is set as the industrial revolution and the Gilded Age shape a new era.  Democrats decisively side with populists with the candidacy of William Jennings Bryan, and Republicans under William McKinley and Mark Hanna side with business interests, and triumph twice decisively, marking the beginning of a period of Republican dominance in which all but eight of those years were presided over by a Republican president. 

1932: The Great Depression brings a sudden end to Republican ascendance, and the beginning of an era of Democratic dominance with the New Deal coalition brought together by President Franklin D. Roosevelt.  It is during this era that organized labor is at its strongest and most influential. 

1968: Richard Nixon wins and holds on to his presidency with a Southern Strategy that involved eventually turning the South Republican as the Republican Party turned more conservative to cater to disaffected Dixiecrats.  It marks the beginning of a period of conservative dominance, marked later on with the victory of Ronald Reagan in 1980, and the Republican Revolution in 1994, and the final full flowering of the conservative Republican coalition with President George W. Bush's re-election in 2004, and final Republican consolidation in the South. 

2008: Regardless of who wins the Democratic nomination, the grinding quagmire of the Iraq War, the implosion of the conservative Republican coalition that had held together for forty years, a growing insecurity among Americans with and as a result of globalization (and free trade in particular), and the disaffection of the American people (particularly the Millennial generation as it grows older) with conservatism and the Republican Party in general will mark the beginning of another period of Democratic dominance as Americans turn once more to the left.  For their efforts to fight illegal immigration Republicans, rightly or wrongly, will be seen by Latinos as a den of nativists and xenophobes and generally unwelcoming to ethnic minorities.  As with blacks during the 1964 Goldwater campaign, the GOP will decisively cede the Latino vote as a whole to Democrats for at least a generation.  With the GOP so closely associated with the South and the Religious Right in the minds of most Americans, Democrats will find their greatest chance for expanding their power throughout the Rocky Mountain West, especially in the Southwest. 

[Frodo]

Might be worth bumping this thread...