Two Guesses

[Smid]

Have you figured out what kind of policies, issues and voting blocs that will materialize afterwards?

Well, my guess now is a more fiscally conservative government.  The "litmus test" might be, how fiscally conservative is a candidate as opposed to a socially conservative.  I would not have said that in February of 2008.

I think there is about a 50/50 chance to see the end of racial politics.

The selection of Ryan seems to back up your earlier thoughts on fiscal conservatism becoming the most important attribute in Republican candidates.

[J. J.]

I would not call the Democratic map a realignment map.  Here would be an example of one:



A Republican realignment map would look more like this:



Neither map is, of course, a prediction.  I basically think that, for a realignment, you'd basically need the loser to be below 150 EV's, though I'd feel more comfortable if its below 125 EV's.

In addition, there would have to changes in Congress, though 2010 might qualify.  If this is a Republican realignment, I think they'll have to hold the House and probably take the Senate, as well as winning the presidency.

[InsaneTrollLogic]

...and about the Democratic map, I am just saying what a Democrat would probably have to do to win in the future if we are reverting back to old school political patterns of executive versus workers as oppose to stoners versus hicks-style cultural battle.

...and I would say in this climate, a Democrtaic realignment would be more like-



...but beyond this, what about the original question?

[J. J.]

There is some evidence that we are in a re-alignment, but we really won't know until 2016.  We might be able to rule it out in the meantime.

[InsaneTrollLogic]

...and this election could have simply meant that either Obama was competent or incompetent depending on whether or not he gets reelected.

[J. J.]

...and this election could have simply meant that either Obama was competent or incompetent depending on whether or not he gets reelected.

Well, I've made the argument that a realignment is basically seen over a series of elections:

1. The Precursor Election

The change party increase in the congressional midterms dramatically.  1858, 1894, 1930, 1978.

2. The Grand Realignment

The change party holds at least one house and the president is elected in a landslide of Electoral Votes, defeating the incumbent party candidate.  1860, 1896, 1932, 1980.

3.  The Holding Election

The change party may lose seats, but still holds at least one house, usually gaining seats in the house the hold.  1862, 1898, 1934, 1982.

4.  The Confirming Election

Change party wins the presidency by a larger margin of Electoral Votes, still holds one house and gains seats.  1864, 1900, 1936, 1984.

At the time, 1946, 1950, 1966, 1974, 1994 and 2006 all could have been Precursor Elections.  It is very clear that none of them were.  2010 has that potential.

If Romney loses or wins, but not by a large margin (e.g. 335 to 203), it probably is not a realignment.  We could rule out one ending in 2016.

[InsaneTrollLogic]

Though, the next opportunity or a realignment would be in 2014, if under the logic that it takes a precursor mid term. With 1976 being a reactionary election?

Perhaps if there was no WWII, 1940 or 1944 could have been a single reactionary year, but instead, we got two in 1952 and 1956 due to Ike being moderate and competent.

In a way 1912 and 1916 could be seen as reactionary years, too.

[Senator Snowstalker]

A revived NDC map would look something like this.



California is THE swing state.

[J. J.]

Though, the next opportunity or a realignment would be in 2014, if under the logic that it takes a precursor mid term.

The original prediction was that by 2016, we'd be in a realignment (inclusive of just ending one).  So yes, 2014 would be a possibility for the precursor.

I think as you can tell, this is a macro view.

I actually thought that we could have seen a McCain victory over Clinton in 2008, and we'd be seeing the Obama realignment this year.

[InsaneTrollLogic]

Could have 1968 been an idealogical realignment and 1980 beomg a policy realignment?

[J. J.]

Could have 1968 been an idealogical realignment and 1980 beomg a policy realignment?

Not really.  In many ways, Nixon was ideologically close to LBJ, and vice versa.

[InsaneTrollLogic]

What about the rhetoric and the maps?

[J. J.]

What about the rhetoric and the maps?

What about it?

[InsaneTrollLogic]

Wasn't 1968 the year that the South stopped voting for losing Democrats and when the entire idea of "law and order" and "silent majority" started to be talked about? ...and in 1972, there was the 3A meme. Maybe policy didn't change yet, but ideology was changing and in 1968 was the year a Democrat lost the South since all the Southern states could vote after the Civil War.

[J. J.]

Wasn't 1968 the year that the South stopped voting for losing Democrats and when the entire idea of "law and order" and "silent majority" started to be talked about? ...and in 1972, there was the 3A meme. Maybe policy didn't change yet, but ideology was changing and in 1968 was the year a Democrat lost the South since all the Southern states could vote after the Civil War.

Well, no.  Nixon didn't get a majority in any Southern State in 1968, despite his VP being from one.  Excepting the border states, Goldwater got a hired percentage in 1964.  Nixon didn't give his "silent majority" speech until 1969.  "Law and order" was associated as much, if not more, with Wallace.

Further, in 1976, you had the return of the "New Deal coalition."

[InsaneTrollLogic]

Wasn't 1968 the year that the South stopped voting for losing Democrats and when the entire idea of "law and order" and "silent majority" started to be talked about? ...and in 1972, there was the 3A meme. Maybe policy didn't change yet, but ideology was changing and in 1968 was the year a Democrat lost the South since all the Southern states could vote after the Civil War.

Well, no.  Nixon didn't get a majority in any Southern State in 1968, despite his VP being from one.  Excepting the border states, Goldwater got a hired percentage in 1964.  Nixon didn't give his "silent majority" speech until 1969.  "Law and order" was associated as much, if not more, with Wallace.

Further, in 1976, you had the return of the "New Deal coalition."

...and look at how Nixon did in 1972. You can also see that the states where McGovern came closest were the Great Lakes and Northeast.

but wasn't that more of a short-lived reactionary election, perhaps in the same mold that 2008 could of proved to be? 

[J. J.]

Wasn't 1968 the year that the South stopped voting for losing Democrats and when the entire idea of "law and order" and "silent majority" started to be talked about? ...and in 1972, there was the 3A meme. Maybe policy didn't change yet, but ideology was changing and in 1968 was the year a Democrat lost the South since all the Southern states could vote after the Civil War.

Well, no.  Nixon didn't get a majority in any Southern State in 1968, despite his VP being from one.  Excepting the border states, Goldwater got a hired percentage in 1964.  Nixon didn't give his "silent majority" speech until 1969.  "Law and order" was associated as much, if not more, with Wallace.

Further, in 1976, you had the return of the "New Deal coalition."

...and look at how Nixon did in 1972. You can also see that the states where McGovern came closest were the Great Lakes and Northeast.

but wasn't that more of a short-lived reactionary election, perhaps in the same mold that 2008 could of proved to be? 

1972 was not 1968.  A blowout election, 1964, 1912, even 1988, does not make a realignment in and of itself.  There have to be a number of factors, including changes in the composition of Congress.  That didn't happen in 1966-72.

[InsaneTrollLogic]

But did anything that happened with Nixon foreshadow what would happen with Reagan? 

[J. J.]

But did anything that happened with Nixon foreshadow what would happen with Reagan? 

Probably not too much.  You could argue that the "Hard Hat" rioters were, in some ways, precursors of the Reagan Democrats, but they represented union leadership (and one union only).  They were also a reaction to the hippies in many ways.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_Hat_Riot

I don't think you could have looked at Nixon in 1968 or 1972, and seen the Reagan presidency in the 1980's, in terms of policy.  I think you could have policy-wise, looked at Nixon, and seen a Carter or Ford.

 

[InsaneTrollLogic]

What about the rise of cultural conservatism? The main thing with Reagan seemed to be the huge tax cuts, his spending was pretty similiar or even more Keynesian than the 3 before him.

[J. J.]

What about the rise of cultural conservatism? The main thing with Reagan seemed to be the huge tax cuts, his spending was pretty similiar or even more Keynesian than the 3 before him.

That was supply side economics, which wasn't Keynesian.

You really didn't see cultural conservatives coming to prominence until the late 1970's.  I would argue that, really, every presidential nominee, from either party, from 1992 umtil today, was to the right of both candidates in 1976.

[InsaneTrollLogic]

How so? and can you be a big Government spender and be supply side?

The entire "where is the center" issue is a great paradox. On one hand, abortion is legal and homosexuality is no somewhere between tolerated and accepted. Marijuana would be tolerated if it wasn't for the corrupting influences of our lobbying system. Universal Healthcare has been realized.

On the other hand, taxes have been cut in half for the most privileged and they continue to gain more legal and economic license while those of modest privilege continue to face more obstacles to collective bargaining and recieving a good education. Its even worse for the unprivileged as its harder and harder to go on welfare and harder to come up for an excuse for being insolvent.  Further,  there are more loopholes to convict the accused against their due process and to allow those with property to harm others with impunity. 

Where does that leave us?

I mean, things are somewhat less fair than they are, but are still somewhat more fair than they were just before things started to become more fair...but law and society are getting more tolerant overall.

[J. J.]

How so? and can you be a big Government spender and be supply side?

Easily.  The concept is that if you cut taxes, you raise revenue.

I mean, things are somewhat less fair than they are, but are still somewhat more fair than they were just before things started to become more fair...but law and society are getting more tolerant overall.

It deals with opportunity and the role of government.

[InsaneTrollLogic]

How so? and can you be a big Government spender and be supply side?

Easily.  The concept is that if you cut taxes, you raise revenue.

I mean, things are somewhat less fair than they are, but are still somewhat more fair than they were just before things started to become more fair...but law and society are getting more tolerant overall.

It deals with opportunity and the role of government.

I mean, is that just in terms of revenues or spending? They're different yet related. I mean, even if you did move up the Lauffer curve, would you be spending more than you have brought in revenue? I mean, wasn't it Ross Perot who believed in lower taxes meant more revenue and then spend that extra reveune on health care reform and overall better services?   And what kind of  "opportunity" and "roles"? 

[J. J.]

I mean, is that just in terms of revenues or spending? They're different yet related. I mean, even if you did move up the Lauffer curve, would you be spending more than you have brought in revenue? I mean, wasn't it Ross Perot who believed in lower taxes meant more revenue and then spend that extra reveune on health care reform and overall better services?   And what kind of  "opportunity" and "roles"? 

They are not related.  Supply side economics says the deficits don't matter.