Two Guesses

[J. J.]

I think there is one important point that you may have overlooked in this analysis, regarding the Reagan realignment.  Southern Democrats are a complicated breed, but there is a general consensus that conservatives won a majority in the House in 1980 and then lost it in 1982.  That didn't make Reagan's reforms any less influential.

You also had the gypsy moths, northern Republicans that were hostile to part of the Reagan agenda. 

In 1932, you did have a few Bull Moose Republicans that supported FDR.

[J. J.]

In 1980, the last realignment, the polls moved in the final fortnight.  Because we don't have solid polling of prior realignments, we can't tell that this is the sign of a realignment.

[InsaneTrollLogic]

Basically, what I am saying is that if there was a true "realignment", there would be massive structural changes to the American party system.

[J. J.]

Basically, what I am saying is that if there was a true "realignment", there would be massive structural changes to the American party system.

Structural changes in the parties, no.  Financing, and how campaigns are conducted, yes.  The are happening.

[InsaneTrollLogic]

And how will that affect the issues? Basically, you are saying that this will be a more libertarian change than a conservative one? and by structural, I mean that there will be one main legitimate party with one party being more of a protest vote.

Could what I have been talking about finally happen in the Democratic party where the Democrats actually start messaging to people who will actually vote and vote for them? (focus more on independents and women instead of the disadvantaged).

[J. J.]

And how will that affect the issues? Basically, you are saying that this will be a more libertarian change than a conservative one? and by structural, I mean that there will be one main legitimate party with one party being more of a protest vote.

I think I said that it could be more libertarian, not that it would.  This one is of fiscal conservatism.

No, I don't think there will be one party.

Could what I have been talking about finally happen in the Democratic party where the Democrats actually start messaging to people who will actually vote and vote for them? (focus more on independents and women instead of the disadvantaged).

It might be a different focus, less bureaucratic, on the disadvantage.

[InsaneTrollLogic]

What kind of different focus? What states do you think they might start focusing on? Will this push the Dems out west, back south or...

Perhaps Democrats will be the party of  "Third Way" economics (public funding and private implementation)  and White Collar social policy?

[J. J.]

What kind of different focus? What states do you think they might start focusing on? Will this push the Dems out west, back south or...

I was writing regarding the disadvantaged.  I'll make another bold prediction.  In the election of 2032, one half of the black voters will be voting Republican, if not sooner.

Perhaps Democrats will be the party of  "Third Way" economics (public funding and private implementation)  and White Collar social policy?

Possibly.

[InsaneTrollLogic]

I could actually see that. If minorities start voting R, who will vote D?

[J. J.]

I could actually see that. If minorities start voting R, who will vote D?

You could see an income divide, or a regional divide.

[InsaneTrollLogic]

Regional divide? That could be interesting. Any maps?

[J. J.]

Regional divide? That could be interesting. Any maps?

Left Coast/Right Coast, the Center.

I would not be too surprised to see IL become a swing state.

[InsaneTrollLogic]

So, basically the entire midwest where Republicans won big in 2010 will become reliably Republican and Democrats will have to look to the South Atlantic and push inland from the Left Coast to make up the gains but many voters there will onlly vote for them under a certain level of duress.

[J. J.]

So, basically the entire midwest where Republicans won big in 2010 will become reliably Republican and Democrats will have to look to the South Atlantic and push inland from the Left Coast to make up the gains but many voters there will onlly vote for them under a certain level of duress.

This could be the future patterns:



That is not a prediction, but I think the patterns might start forming like this.  Contrast with 1976 and 1980.

[InsaneTrollLogic]

That actually could be believable, but its pretty much the current map but the Democrats can't rely on the Great Lakes anymore...though I imagine that I a good Democrat would be able to push more west than south.

[J. J.]

Three other potential toss up states:

PA, WV, AZ

[InsaneTrollLogic]

I'll go with that. Perhaps a very good democrat might win in the Dakotas or Montana and perhaps a very good Republican will take some small up market Dem state like Connecticut or Maryland.

A possible scenario

2012-
Obama 46.4%
Romney 52.2%



2016-
Romney/Ryan 55.4%
Clinton/Schweitzer 43.2%



2020
Cuomo/O'Malley 54.4%
Ryan/Cruz- 44.4%

[J. J.]

I would almost say that, if there is a realignment, 2020 will be reversed in terms of PV.

If you want to watch me become very pessimistic, watch what happens if Romney wins in a close election.

[Skill and Chance]

I would almost say that, if there is a realignment, 2020 will be reversed in terms of PV.

If you want to watch me become very pessimistic, watch what happens if Romney wins in a close election.

So you're worried that Romney is reverse Carter?

You might be waiting for nothing, though. The country could just be angry enough to throw out 3-4 incumbents in a row until the economy takes off. 

I actually think the worst outcome for Democrats would be if Obama barely wins and Republicans take the senate, particularly if Obama loses the popular vote in the process.  He doesn't need to repeat 2008, but he needs a good 3-4% September margin not to be a lame duck from day 1.

[J. J.]

So you're worried that Romney is reverse Carter?

You might be waiting for nothing, though. The country could just be angry enough to throw out 3-4 incumbents in a row until the economy takes off. 

I actually think the worst outcome for Democrats would be if Obama barely wins and Republicans take the senate, particularly if Obama loses the popular vote in the process.  He doesn't need to repeat 2008, but he needs a good 3-4% September margin not to be a lame duck from day 1.

We've kind of been talking about three analogous elections:

A.  Wilson/Hughes 1916

B.  Ford/Carter 1976

C.  Carter/Reagan 1980

C. was a realignment, B. was election right before the realignment.  This could be B. 

[InsaneTrollLogic]

So, what you are thinking now, it could be conceivable that-

if when we finally go to bed 3 weeks and a day from now THIS-



and maybe a divided or a barely R senate because the Gypsy Moth Republicans did well in the  Northeast....

This would mean that the Republicans will have to be very good or lucky to keep the momentum going...

If we see Obama doing ok in places in Ohio, Virginia and Colorado and keeping the senate, he might simply be a placeholder until we go back to what we had in 2004, basically we'll be back on the straight express, with roughly the same numbers of what we had then...except the Rs may lose their immediate opportunity to at least repeal the most of the Civil Rights movement through the courts.

If we see the Republicans winning by more than what they won in 2004,  (maybe 10 EVs for every senator they are short), this could be a 1896 type of deal where the Corporation is finally enshrined as the main political unit of the country, the same way 1896 enshrined the Gold Standard.

[J. J.]

First, that is not even close to a realignment map.

Second, I give Obama IA and WI. 

[Skill and Chance]

So you're worried that Romney is reverse Carter?

You might be waiting for nothing, though. The country could just be angry enough to throw out 3-4 incumbents in a row until the economy takes off. 

I actually think the worst outcome for Democrats would be if Obama barely wins and Republicans take the senate, particularly if Obama loses the popular vote in the process.  He doesn't need to repeat 2008, but he needs a good 3-4% September margin not to be a lame duck from day 1.

We've kind of been talking about three analogous elections:

A.  Wilson/Hughes 1916

B.  Ford/Carter 1976

C.  Carter/Reagan 1980

C. was a realignment, B. was election right before the realignment.  This could be B. 

For B. wouldn't the 2016 Dem have to beat Romney by running left of Obama?  That seems a little far fetched as of now.

For C., Romney seems way too moderate to actually bring down the New Deal.

[J. J.]

For B. wouldn't the 2016 Dem have to beat Romney by running left of Obama?  That seems a little far fetched as of now.

For C., Romney seems way too moderate to actually bring down the New Deal.

Neither would be.  Actually, on the issues, Romney is substantially different. 

[InsaneTrollLogic]

You think Romney could end the New Deal and perhaps though not quite get us to the gilded Age, may get us to the 1920s where there were some regulations in place, but nothing like Social Security or Medicare.

and if there is a realignment I expect these things to happen-

1) Rederegulate the insurance market
2) Medicare and Medicaid to be privitized and replaced with vochers
3) Employer health insurance mandate to be replaced with matching funding of tax free HSAs and home-bought policies. 
4) more health care for the needy through grants to charities.
5) Allow insurers to do blood and genome tests as a condition of getting insurance.
6) Allow insurers to "sell across state lines"

The democrats, could respond with these policies when they win-
1) Mandatory minimium health contribution from employers for all employees who are earners under a certain point
2) allowing those who can prove they can't get private insurance to have  higher vouchers from employers.
3) pass some sort of health purchase program modeled on the food stamp program.


Otherwise, I think that if someone runs to the left of Obama and wins in 2016, I think that hypothetical #46 will call for and get a public option.