Two Guesses

[Skill and Chance]

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.

[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.

[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.

[Skill and Chance]

If this is the election before the realignment:

GOP realignment

2012

 

Obama/Biden 48.7%/277 Romney/Ryan 49.1%/261

Economy gets worse...

2016

Rubio/Christie 53.9%/374  Cuomo/Klobuchar 44.0%/164

2020

Rubio/Christie 56.2%/407  Hickenlooper/Patrick 42.1%/131


Dem Realignment

2012

Romney/Ryan 50.3%/285  Obama/Biden 48.1%/253

Economy gets worse...

2016

Schweitzer/Warren 53.6%/377  Romney/Ryan 44.5%/161 

2020

Schweitzer/Warren 57.1%/409  Jindal/Paul 129 41.2%/129

Thoughts?

[Skill and Chance]

This would all indicate a trend back to where there are both cultural liberals and conservatives in both parties and an end of the New Deal. Basically 2020 could be the anti-1960...basically a socially liberal Gilded Age where the Republican party is basically the Federal Party...and unless the Democrats coalesce in a particular reigion (this is an unless argument and not given because of the Senate goes R its because the Republicans were winners in every party of the country), the Republicans will eventually be up against reigional opposition parties. Maybe the Green Party in the West coast, The Libertarian Party in the West and Northeast and maybe some American party in the South and Midwest. Basically, that's what the Gilded Age basically was. The Democrats had a lock on the south, were very weak anywhere else and various "Not Republicans" were a semi-viable alternative outside of the South.   

That is plausible. 

I've been trying to think of ways the dems could transform into a viable party if it abandoned it's twisted policies/constituents or was finally faced with perpetual defeat.  Regional opposition makes a lot of sense.  They could try to split the electoral college 4 or 5 ways if they ever had a coalition in the house.     

This is ridiculous.  You sound just like all the liberals in 2009 crowing that it would be 2030 before the Republicans were competitive outside of the South.  There is a presidential nominee in a statistical tie running on the most liberal platform in a generation.

[Skill and Chance]

...Sure, they may well do that, which would likely cause a serious breakdown in the dems ability to be a national party. 

A Neo-'Rockefeller'-ish brand of Republicans based in the powder blue states lead the party. 
The Green States face Bankruptcy/Bond default/Austerity. 

The dems faced with perpetual defeat turn to A powerful southern based Bush-Clinton-esque political family to break up the southern block. 

The NE will always be in opposition to the Deep south and thus eventually realigns.
This re-balances the parties 269-269 

Pray tell who can enforce bankruptcy/austerity on a sovereign state?  And if the GOP can win nationally exclusively by turning their base out, why can't the Dems?  You realize there are lots of people out there that aren't voting this year because they think Obama didn't do enough, right?

[Skill and Chance]

The developing Europe situation suggests that whatever realignment is coming will happen in 2014-20.  Syriza is in position to win the 2013 Greek election and what follows could easily be worse than 2008 for the global economy as the EU collapses.  Unless all the stars align on the EU, someone will be wishing they had lost this year's election.  The only remaining question is who.   

[Skill and Chance]

but, things could perhaps flip again if Romney basically gets 2004 like power in 2012 and then it hits the fan between next year and perhaps next election....and any Republican thats in charge when it hits the fan will be forced into a drastic choice. The only two places they can go without pissing off the base is to decouple from the global ecocomy or try to reinflate American financial institutions. People are pissed off from the second one but perhaps Mitt can sell it if he can win the presidency. The alternative didn't work in 1929.  Then again, if he wins a narrow election and things improve drastically, this could be the realignment that the Republicans were hoping for under Karl Rove.

If the federal government is under 1 party control when the EU goes into full meltdown, that party can expect to get creamed in the next congressional cycle and be at a disadvantage in the next 3 presidential cycles.  Running against Santorum or Elizabeth Warren might save them in 2016, but that's about it.

However, if there is divided government when the EU goes down, the prospects are a bit brighter for the incumbent president.  If Romney needs Reid or Obama needs Boehner to ratify his plan, the crisis becomes nonpartisan.  It might actually be spun as a positive "crossing the aisle in our time of need" moment.  Democrats likely won't be getting the House back even if Obama wins, but Romney should really be praying that Republicans don't get the Senate either.

[Skill and Chance]

At this point it is basically going to be 50/49 either way this year.  This leaves 4 possibilities in my mind:

1. Romney narrowly wins, economy is much better in 2016: Obama = Carter and Romney = Reagan, 2012 was the realignment, Romney wins 55/45 in 2016 and is followed by a Republican.

2. Romney narrowly wins, economy is worse in 2016: Obama = Ford and Romney = Carter, Democratic realignment in 2016, someone running left of Obama defeats Romney by 55/45 or worse.

3. Obama narrowly wins, economy is worse in 2016: Obama = Wilson, Republican realignment and landslide win in 2016 with a candidate running right of Romney.

4. Obama narrowly wins, economy is much better in 2016: Obama = Andrew Jackson and Obamacare = Jackson killing the National Bank, we look back on 2008 as a realignment because universal health care stays in place for the long haul and the 2016 Democrat is heavily favored.
 

[Skill and Chance]

At this point it is basically going to be 50/49 either way this year.  This leaves 4 possibilities in my mind:

1. Romney narrowly wins, economy is much better in 2016: Obama = Carter and Romney = Reagan, 2012 was the realignment, Romney wins 55/45 in 2016 and is followed by a Republican.

2. Romney narrowly wins, economy is worse in 2016: Obama = Ford and Romney = Carter, Democratic realignment in 2016, someone running left of Obama defeats Romney by 55/45 or worse.

3. Obama narrowly wins, economy is worse in 2016: Obama = Wilson, Republican realignment and landslide win in 2016 with a candidate running right of Romney.

4. Obama narrowly wins, economy is much better in 2016: Obama = Andrew Jackson and Obamacare = Jackson killing the National Bank, we look back on 2008 as a realignment because universal health care stays in place for the long haul and the 2016 Democrat is heavily favored.
 

We can rule out #1, because realignments tend to be big.  The weakest one was 1896, and this looks lower.

We can rule out #4 because of a., the weakness of his win and b., the 2010 elections.  2 and 3 are possibilities. 

There isn't a whole lot of precedent for #1, but if we have 4% growth by 2016, Romney will romp.  It doesn't really matter if he only made it through by one state in 2012.

#4 is still very possible.  Jackson did worse the second time around and his presidency was a realignment.  Also, conservatives (as an R-D coalition) lost the House in the 1982 midterm.