2008: A Realignment in the making

[Torie]

"But if what we have seen so far in 2006, as well as in Iowa and New Hampshire in 2008 is any indication; single women, those of the post Baby-Boom generations, voters who do not identify strongly with either major party, and those who want to reform a highly dysfunctional Federal Government that's been besieged by bitter partisanship will play a prominent role. "

The above is not a coalition.

[defe07]

I think we can see 2008 as a year where the American voters will break away from the traditional media and focus on the Internet, since I personally think that the elections will have a big meaning in the future thanks to the Internet. Also, I think we can see a movement towards an opening of the 2-party system and the inclusion of 1 or 2 viable third parties. Something like Perot tried to do in the '90s but just didn't care. We also might see a focus on where the candidates stand on issues and vote for a candidate based on this and not any other thing. 

[berlin1929]

I tend to agree with MDDEM on the realignment argument.  Another indicator is how "extreme" a Party becomes as it begins to face decline.  Question in my mind, has the extremist Religious Right become the dominate force in the GOP and how is that like the "extremist" Liberals associated with dominating the Democratic Party in the late 1970's?  In other words, has the GOP swung too far Right???

I also detect a change in NC that may have been foreshadowed in the 2004 election.  The state is now a majority "urban".  However, if there's a drag to the Right it may be reinforced by newcomers (Floridians, southern Californians, suburban Northeasterners, rural Pennsylvanians and Ohioans...) who seem to be more Conservative than even natives!

Just some random thoughts...

[Smid]

First, Presidential cycles have run on 32 - 36 years cycles.  While this is not fixed, no explanation has been offered for the last cycle (in your explanation) for lasting 4 - 8 years longer than past cycles.

Is it possible that the result in 2004 would have been different (and thus the current cycle ended four years ago, were it not for the events of September 11, 2001? It seems to me that what happened was so out of the ordinary, that it may have changed the ordinary cycle.

Second, there has been a historical trend for the party emerging as a majority Presidential party to nominate someone in the prior cycle who encapsulates the essence of the new majority, but who is in that election defeated massively.  Look at Goldwater in 1964, and Smith in 1928 as the two most recent examples.  So, how was the Kerry candidacy significantly different from Gore?

Perhaps the fact that Kerry did not differ from Gore could be seen as proof that the cycle was coming to an end, but that it was artificially prolonged by September 11. Might it not suggest that Kerry would have won and that Gore was the Goldwater or Smith candidate who was just that one term before their time, had it not been for the war on terror?

I can't disagree with your third point, Carlhayden, and I agree with your fourth point.

I tend to agree with MDDEM on the realignment argument.  Another indicator is how "extreme" a Party becomes as it begins to face decline.  Question in my mind, has the extremist Religious Right become the dominate force in the GOP and how is that like the "extremist" Liberals associated with dominating the Democratic Party in the late 1970's?  In other words, has the GOP swung too far Right???

I guess the underlying premise of your question on whether the GOP has swung "too far right" depends on your perspective. I don't think the GOP has swung too far right from my ideological perspective, but perhaps it has moved further to the right of the majority of voters, which is really the question that you're asking.

If I remember correctly, one of the strategies credited with winning Bush the 2004 election, was the evangelical vote - drawn out by ballot questions regarding gay marriage. That would suggest to me that perhaps it is leaning further to the right than it has in the past. It might also reflect social conservatives, feeling that the political landscape is beginning to lean more to the left, have been more motivated to maintain the status quo. I don't know the political landscape of the late 70s well enough to compare. In that instance, did the "extreme liberals" who dominated the Democrats have one final gasp before being overwhelmed by a middle-ground surge to the Republicans, or did they rise up only after the change had taken place? (I love Jeane Kirkpatrick's "Blame America First" speech as an example of how moderate Democrats were pushed into the Republican Party by the "extreme liberals" - http://edition.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1996/conventions/san.diego/facts/GOP.speeches.past/84.kirkpatrick.shtml ).

"But if what we have seen so far in 2006, as well as in Iowa and New Hampshire in 2008 is any indication; single women, those of the post Baby-Boom generations, voters who do not identify strongly with either major party, and those who want to reform a highly dysfunctional Federal Government that's been besieged by bitter partisanship will play a prominent role. "

The above is not a coalition.

I think there is some overlap amongst the above - voters not identifying strongly with either party may well be sick of bitter partisanship. Many of these voters may belong to post Baby-Boom generations. We may be seeing this shift due to generational change, as the younger generations see the ways in which the previous generation has failed and attempt to compensate by swinging the pendulum the other way - perhaps too far the other way, which leads to failures and in another 30 years or so, the next generation will swing the pendulum again. This could well explain why political cycles typically last for about 30 years or so.

I think the other point to note is that within one political cycle, both parties may move in the same direction - which can explain why different parties can hold the White House within the one cycle. Politicians in both parties, after all, are fairly astute at seeing which way the wind is blowing.

[Person Man]

I think the other point to note is that within one political cycle, both parties may move in the same direction - which can explain why different parties can hold the White House within the one cycle. Politicians in both parties, after all, are fairly astute at seeing which way the wind is blowing.

Could this also show how Gilded Age Republicans were replaced by Progressive Republicans, instead of democrats?

[CARLHAYDEN]

I think the other point to note is that within one political cycle, both parties may move in the same direction - which can explain why different parties can hold the White House within the one cycle. Politicians in both parties, after all, are fairly astute at seeing which way the wind is blowing.

Could this also show how Gilded Age Republicans were replaced by Progressive Republicans, instead of democrats?

The "quote" cited was from a statement of Smid, not mine.

[Smid]

Could this also show how Gilded Age Republicans were replaced by Progressive Republicans, instead of democrats?

That's exactly what I was thinking, Angry Weasel. The Gilded Age Republicans still would have been members of the Republican Party, but their strength within the Republican Party became less as more moderate/progressive members joined (mainly as society shifted to become more moderate/progressive), thus allowing moderate republicans to take the White House, following a more conservative Republican. If McCain wins the nomination and then wins in November, that could well be another sign of a realignment.

[Person Man]

Could this also show how Gilded Age Republicans were replaced by Progressive Republicans, instead of democrats?

That's exactly what I was thinking, Angry Weasel. The Gilded Age Republicans still would have been members of the Republican Party, but their strength within the Republican Party became less as more moderate/progressive members joined (mainly as society shifted to become more moderate/progressive), thus allowing moderate republicans to take the White House, following a more conservative Republican. If McCain wins the nomination and then wins in November, that could well be another sign of a realignment.

...or it could just mean realignment from more traditional conservatives to what you could call neo-cons, moderate domestically, but very hawkish. I could be better, it could be worse than what we have now.

[J. J.]

First, in looking at policy, Nixon was closer to FDR than Reagan; so was Eisenhower.

I view re-alignments as 6 year affairs. 

1858-64

1894-1900

1930-36

1978-84

[Person Man]

First, in looking at policy, Nixon was closer to FDR than Reagan; so was Eisenhower.

I view re-alignments as 6 year affairs. 

1858-64

1894-1900

1930-36

1978-84

Yes. I'll give you that...but it was Nixon who touted his conservatism and started the Burger Court. Maybe 1974-1980? 

[J. J.]

First, in looking at policy, Nixon was closer to FDR than Reagan; so was Eisenhower.

I view re-alignments as 6 year affairs. 

1858-64

1894-1900

1930-36

1978-84

Yes. I'll give you that...but it was Nixon who touted his conservatism and started the Burger Court. Maybe 1974-1980? 

The Courts don't prompt electoral re-alignments.

[Person Man]

First, in looking at policy, Nixon was closer to FDR than Reagan; so was Eisenhower.

I view re-alignments as 6 year affairs. 

1858-64

1894-1900

1930-36

1978-84

Yes. I'll give you that...but it was Nixon who touted his conservatism and started the Burger Court. Maybe 1974-1980? 

The Courts don't prompt electoral re-alignments.

Not their decisions, but when a president runs on stacking the court to the right and wins where he couldn't have before...you may have a re-alignment. In fact, I would say that the Court's behaviors signal when a realignment has occured.