Was there a realignment of 1896?

[A18]

Discuss.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

Bryan lost so badly that the next 2 non-GOP presidents were Wilson and FDR

[A18]

Bryan lost so badly that the next 2 non-GOP presidents were Wilson and FDR

I don't get it. How are those two presidents an indicator of how badly Bryan lost?

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

His loss discredited the dems so much that until 1912 and 1932 respectively did they get another president in.

[A18]

The biggest accomplishments of the 1897-1932 period were those of the Wilson administration. Wilson was re-elected in 1916, and the Democrats also held the Congress from 1911-1918.

In 1916, the safest prediction would have been that there'd be a relatively competitive two party system well into the near future. It makes no sense to attribute Democratic losses in the 1920s to the "realignment" of 1896, given that Wilson was elected twice, and the Democrats held the Congress for so long. The real trigger was of course World War I.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

No the trigger for a realignment was the depression and it was a dem realignment

[A18]

We're not talking about 1932. We're talking about your attempt to lump the Republican 1920s together with 1896, 1900, 1904, and 1908.

What is your explanation for the Democratic 1910s, and the fact that most policy innovation of the period came under Democratic rule?

[J. J.]

I believe you are making a mistake when you ask if a specific year was the re-alignment.  1896 was the start of a re-alignment period.

[A18]

How? The state-by-state voting pattern in 1900 reflected the divisions of 1888 as much or more than those of 1896.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

Dunno

[minionofmidas]

How? The state-by-state voting pattern in 1900 reflected the divisions of 1888 as much or more than those of 1896.

That's true (Not sure about as much or more... but yeah, if you'd expect linear development you'd have thought 1900 happened between 1888 and 1896.)

[A18]

The election of 1904 compared to 1896 is like its own realignment.

[minionofmidas]

The election of 1904 compared to 1896 is like its own realignment.

Oh definitely. But then, look at the candidates involved.

[J. J.]

We're not talking about 1932. We're talking about your attempt to lump the Republican 1920s together with 1896, 1900, 1904, and 1908.

What is your explanation for the Democratic 1910s, and the fact that most policy innovation of the period came under Democratic rule?

I wouldn't treat 1932 as being a single realignment either.  I'd say 1930-36.

The policy innovations, and the candidate's different stand on policy issues were much more prominent under McKinley and T. Roosevelt (more so the latter). 

[A18]

The election of 1904 compared to 1896 is like its own realignment.

Oh definitely. But then, look at the candidates involved.

The point is that if a realignment is supposed to bring about lasting change in voting patterns, 1896 isn't a realignment.

[J. J.]

The election of 1904 compared to 1896 is like its own realignment.

Oh definitely. But then, look at the candidates involved.

The point is that if a realignment is supposed to bring about lasting change in voting patterns, 1896 isn't a realignment.

It can be a re-enforcement (e.g. southern Democrats during the New Deal),  a "de-alignment," previously loyal groups become swing voters, or a complete realignment.  TR, especially, attracted a lot of the reformers, for example. 

It becomes a question of "Who votes for whom."

[minionofmidas]

The election of 1904 compared to 1896 is like its own realignment.

Oh definitely. But then, look at the candidates involved.

The point is that if a realignment is supposed to bring about lasting change in voting patterns, 1896 isn't a realignment.

Yeah ... I see yr point ... sort of ...

[A18]

The election of 1904 compared to 1896 is like its own realignment.

Oh definitely. But then, look at the candidates involved.

The point is that if a realignment is supposed to bring about lasting change in voting patterns, 1896 isn't a realignment.

Yeah ... I see yr point ... sort of ...

Why sort of?

[A18]

bump

Statistically, 1896 is closer to "deviating" than "realigning."

[Cubby]

I believe there was a realignment in 1896. The urban working classes (at least those who later on weren't attracted to Eugene Debs) voted Republican from this point until the 1930's. Prior to 1896, the Democrats were still winning some Northern states regularly, like Indiana, New Jersey and Connecticut.

The GOP must have done a better job reaching out to the new European immigrant groups that were very big during this time period. The 1912 and 1916 elections are flukes, the former for the obvious split in the GOP and the latter b/c re-elections are based on the incumbent, they don't show trends (i.e., 2004 was almost identical to 2000, 1984-1980, 1956-1952).

[minionofmidas]

The election of 1904 compared to 1896 is like its own realignment.

Oh definitely. But then, look at the candidates involved.

The point is that if a realignment is supposed to bring about lasting change in voting patterns, 1896 isn't a realignment.

Yeah ... I see yr point ... sort of ...

Why sort of?

It depends how broadly we use the term "realignment". If we expect a shock total change at one election, stability before, stability of the new system immediately thereafter, we're not gonna find such a perfect case of realignment anywhere in world history. But that's not to say that the realignment theory is entirely bunk.

[A18]

The GOP must have done a better job reaching out to the new European immigrant groups that were very big during this time period. The 1912 and 1916 elections are flukes, the former for the obvious split in the GOP and the latter b/c re-elections are based on the incumbent, they don't show trends (i.e., 2004 was almost identical to 2000, 1984-1980, 1956-1952).

Even if you attribute 1912 entirely to a split in the GOP, that can't possibly explain the Democrats' 58-seat pickup in the House that gave them control of the chamber in 1910.

The Democrats held majorities in the House from 1911-1917 and in the Senate from 1913-1919. That's a lot of time for a 'fluke.'

[A18]

It depends how broadly we use the term "realignment". If we expect a shock total change at one election, stability before, stability of the new system immediately thereafter, we're not gonna find such a perfect case of realignment anywhere in world history. But that's not to say that the realignment theory is entirely bunk.

The point is that although the 1896 election brought about great change for that one election, the voting patterns did not last.

Statistically, there are plenty of other elections that would fair much better.

[Cubby]

The GOP must have done a better job reaching out to the new European immigrant groups that were very big during this time period. The 1912 and 1916 elections are flukes, the former for the obvious split in the GOP and the latter b/c re-elections are based on the incumbent, they don't show trends (i.e., 2004 was almost identical to 2000, 1984-1980, 1956-1952).

Even if you attribute 1912 entirely to a split in the GOP, that can't possibly explain the Democrats' 58-seat pickup in the House that gave them control of the chamber in 1910.

The Democrats held majorities in the House from 1911-1917 and in the Senate from 1913-1919. That's a lot of time for a 'fluke.'

Congressional Elections aren't the same as Presidential ones. All through the 1970's and 1980's there was a trend towards the Republicans on the latter while the former stayed Democrat until 1994. I thought your original question was about presidential politics.

One of the good things about the American Congress up to the 1980's was the wide swings between each election. You could have a 30 or 40 seat gain towards one party in 1 election, and this would be totally reversed in the next. Look at the 1920's results. Not only did the Democrats always gain in the off years, but if I remember correctly, they gained dozens of seats, not the pathetic changes of 4 or 8 seats that we see these days.

[A18]

The dramatic Democratic takeover of the House in 1910 makes it pretty clear the electorate was fed up with the Republicans before Roosevelt destroyed any chance Taft had of winning re-election (which was low anyway).

If not for the effects of World War I, there would have been a fairly competitive two-party system throughout the 1920s. It makes no sense to attribute Republican dominance in that decade to some kind of "system of 1896."