Wasn't 1992 a realigning election?

[cpeeks]

um Alabama has only went for a democrat once since 1964, and that was for Carter in 1976.

[cpeeks]

If Wallace hadnt have ran in 1968 Nixon would have won going away, no way Alabama would have voted for the father of the civil rights movement. And Carter not only being a son of the south, was very religious which helped him here. Clinton came the closest to carry Alabama than anyone else has besides Carter and he lost by 6 points.

[cpeeks]

Realigning election (often called a "critical election") or political realignment are terms from political science and political history describing a dramatic change in the political system. Scholars frequently apply the term to American elections and occasionally to other countries. Usually it means the coming to power of a new coalition, replacing an old dominant coalition of the other party (or replacing a stalemate, as in the United States in 1896 or 1932). Realignment may center on a critical election or be spread among several elections. More specifically, it often refers to American national elections in which there are sharp changes in issues, party leaders, the regional and demographic bases of power of the two parties, and structure or rules of the political system (such as voter eligibility or financing), resulting in a new political power structure.

[cpeeks]

the gop took over in 94 not 92

[cpeeks]

You don't freakin get it.

No, you don't get it.  Outside of the Deep South, Wallace got his support from Labor, blue collar workers, immigrants, etc.  These groups were always strong backers of Hubert Humphrey.  They would have gone in large numbers to Humphrey, swinging multiple states.  In the South, these voters would have gone slightly to Nixon, maybe 40/30, with the remaining 30% or so just staying home.  You're attempting to relate anything in 1968 with 2008 is foolish, and makes little sense.  The states have changed drastically over the last 40 years, and saying that a state voted someway in 1968 because it is liberal/conservative now is just pointless.

Hmm...I was always under the impression that most of those labor, blue collar workers would've gone to Nixon without Wallace in the picture. I understand that they were Democrats, but they were socially conservative, and I think without Wallace, Nixon's law-and-order platform would've been appealing to them, especially during the turmoil of the sixties. I'm not saying that all Wallace voters would've gone toward Nixon, but I think a majority of them would have.

Wallace voters split differently in different parts of the country.  For example, in Texas and in the rest of the South, the Wallace voters would have almost certainly went for Nixon.   On the other hand, in California and the upper Midwest, many Wallace voters would have gone for Humpherey. 

Well I am not sure how many voters went to wallace in cali, but the midwest is alot like the south im sure those voters would have broke to wallace.

[cpeeks]

You don't freakin get it.

No, you don't get it.  Outside of the Deep South, Wallace got his support from Labor, blue collar workers, immigrants, etc.  These groups were always strong backers of Hubert Humphrey.  They would have gone in large numbers to Humphrey, swinging multiple states.  In the South, these voters would have gone slightly to Nixon, maybe 40/30, with the remaining 30% or so just staying home.  You're attempting to relate anything in 1968 with 2008 is foolish, and makes little sense.  The states have changed drastically over the last 40 years, and saying that a state voted someway in 1968 because it is liberal/conservative now is just pointless.

Hmm...I was always under the impression that most of those labor, blue collar workers would've gone to Nixon without Wallace in the picture. I understand that they were Democrats, but they were socially conservative, and I think without Wallace, Nixon's law-and-order platform would've been appealing to them, especially during the turmoil of the sixties. I'm not saying that all Wallace voters would've gone toward Nixon, but I think a majority of them would have.

They would have Han Wallace was a populist and the mid-west and the rust belt states were gonna break for Wallace.  No way they were gonna vote for Humphrey. Wallace struck a cord and these people were loyal to him, there are several books that say his candidacy in 1968 and 1972 led to Reagans election by the "Reagan Democrats" in 1980.

[cpeeks]

No it was not. Part of the reason Republicans have done so poorly since 1992 in Presidential elections is because in 1996 Clinton was basically a shoo in without Powell running, in 2000 they nominated the wrong candidate whereas McCain, E. Dole, or getting one of the 1994ers elected to run/ be nominated would have resulted in a better win, and in 2004 and 2008 same situation, Wrong candidates were elected/nominated and came across as too partisan either due to their VP choice or policies. I could easily see a Republican win that is larger than Bush's 04 margin in 2012 if a stronger national ticket is nominated than usually.

This post is about 1992 not 96, 2000, 04, or 08, and yes by definition it was a realigning year. I mean how do you say its not when argument is based on future elections, makes no sense at all, you have to look at past elections to define a realigning election.

[cpeeks]

No: Clinton won partly because he was able to pull the Democratic party significantly to the right of where it had been before. And even then, the Republicans made huge gains in 1994.

No, Clinton was a hardcore liberal in 1992, and then when the Republicans won in 1994 he claimed their platform as his own just so that he could be reelected.

In 1992 Bill Clinton said he would cut taxes for the middle class, so he wasn't a "hardcore" liberal in 1992, and he never was. 

I thought cutting taxes for the middle class (and poor) was a liberal position. It's cutting taxes for the rich which is a conservative idea.

No that's just class warfare. Lower taxes are considered conservative and higher taxes are considered liberal by 21st century definitions.

lol. That's not the way I learned it. And if that was the case, then Reagan would be considered a liberal since he raised taxes much more times than he cut them. Also, Bush Sr. would be a liberal because he raised taxes and never cut them. Finally, JFK and LBJ would be conservatives because they cut or wanted to cut taxes.

Yup Reagan raised taxes 13 times, and if I am not mistaken the tax increase in 1982 was the largest in history.

[cpeeks]

LOL OMG, are u serious? OK Here ya go his tax increase and in dollars:
Tax Increases Billions of Dollars
Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 +57.3
Highway Revenue Act of 1982 +4.9
Social Security Amendments of 1983 +24.6
Railroad Retirement Revenue Act of 1983 +1.2
Deficit Reduction Act of 1984 +25.4
Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 +2.9
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 +2.4
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 +0.6
Continuing Resolution for 1987 +2.8
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987 +8.6
Continuing Resolution for 1988 +2.0
Total cumulative tax increases +132.7

 Source: Office of Management and Budget, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal 1990

LOL YEA DUDE REAGAN RAISED TAXES ARE YOU SERIOUS? YOU DIDNT KNOW THAT, HE RAISED TAXES ALMOST 133 BILLION A YEAR, OMG!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ARE YOU FREAKING SERIOUS YOU TALK ABOUT HOW INFORMED YOU ARE AND YOU DIDNT KNOW THAT YOUR BELOVED HEROES REAGAN AND BUSH HAD THE LARGEST TAX INCREASES ON THE AMERICAN PEOPLE IN U.S. HISTORY, REALLY? REALLY? REALLY? I MEAN REALLY?

[cpeeks]

LOL OMG WHY DO YOU SAY THIS CRAP? YEA ITS FINE TO RAISE TAXES ON EVERY MIDDLE AND LOWER CLASS PEOPLE, AS LONG AS IT DOESNT EFFECT THE RICH, OH BUT WAIT LET A DEMOCRAT PROPOSE A TAX INCREASE AND THERE EVIL. YOU ARE SOMETHING ELSE, LOL, OMG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[cpeeks]

It was said in jest, good night every have to wake up early and go vote we have a run-off tomorrow in the great state of Alabama, and then I have to go look for work.