Two Guesses

[J. J.]

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.   

That is a real possibility.  I define it with 4 elections and we are approaching the second one. 

[J. J.]

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.

Narrow elections are not realigning elections. 

[J. J.]

here is my view on the coming realignment:

I was hungry and ate the pigeon before I got all the details.

I think it is coming, but I am not sure if it is this year and, if not, it would be a Republican realignment.

[J. J.]

Well, if it doesn't happen now, it could be anyone's realignment. ...but it could be an R one if Romney wins and wins by a real landslide in 2016 or Obama is just awful in his second term.

Some of the macro-elements are there, but they are not hugely predictive.  If this is a realignment, I don't think we'll know, for sure until at least 2014.  1964 was a big D win; 1966 was not. 

[J. J.]

The realignment will be the midwest "rust belt" becoming fairly R or at least not leaning dem.  WI, PA, MI, MN all in play and going half or more R is crippling to the Ds.  The combination of a successful Romney administration and popular R Govs and Sens locally will begin to cement the shift.   

What about Democratic gains in the Southeast and the Southwest?

SE, probably not.  The SW is a possibility. 

[J. J.]

Especially if the racial gap narrows, so do chances in the Southeast. Rreally, were discussing a situation which might not happen on happen on a different set of parameters. Remember when we thought that there would be a realignment based on a nationalist agenda which would propel the likes of Akin, Murdock and Huckabee to power while ceding to Democrats middle and upper-middle class women in their 30s which Obama now has a problem with.

I am not sure anybody thought that.  I've though it might be fiscal conservatism. 

[J. J.]

So, J.J., now that it looks as President Obama will win re-election with Democrats retaining the Senate and Republicans retaining the House, how does this fit into your realignment predictions?

I think it is way too early to say that for either.  We could see a Romney victory amd it not be a realignment.

How about now? 

Today, I'd guess a Romney victory but no realignment.  Long term bad news for Republicans. 

[J. J.]

So, J.J., now that it looks as President Obama will win re-election with Democrats retaining the Senate and Republicans retaining the House, how does this fit into your realignment predictions?

I think it is way too early to say that for either.  We could see a Romney victory amd it not be a realignment.

How about now? 

Today, I'd guess a Romney victory but no realignment.  Long term bad news for Republicans. 

What do you foresee? That perhaps Obama was just a little early?

I won't be foreseeing anything for a week. 

[J. J.]

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. 

[J. J.]

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.

#1  Winning reelection isn't a realignment, even by a large margin (Nixon 1972).

#4  Jackson increased his EV and PV in 1832.  D's increased their House and Senate seats in 1836, while the NR's lost seats each year. 

[J. J.]

So, J.J., now that it looks as President Obama will win re-election with Democrats retaining the Senate and Republicans retaining the House, how does this fit into your realignment predictions?

I think it is way too early to say that for either.  We could see a Romney victory amd it not be a realignment.

How about now? 

Today, I'd guess a Romney victory but no realignment.  Long term bad news for Republicans. 

Allow me to repeat the question -with President Obama now having won a second term, as well as a status quo in Congress, how does that fit into your particular realignment theory?

2016 would probably be a Republican year, but we would need to see what 2014 looks like.  A sizable gain of some type of "new Democrat" could happen. 

This election is noteworthy in:

1.  The incumbent was re-elected, but with fewer EV, and about 7 point drop in PV.

2.  There were no coattails. 

[J. J.]

The deluge may be upon us (not that I'm thrilled about it).

[J. J.]

A recent article on the possibility of a realignment:  http://www.pennlive.com/opinion/2016/12/donald_trumps_win_was_unusual.html#incart_river_home

There are several indicators, but not an overwhelming number.

1.  The 2014 election was huge, especially in the House.  That can be an indicator, but there are numerous false examples.

2.  In terms of candidate selection, Trump is a rarity in never having held a political office.

3.  In terms of how the election was conducted, Trump's use of Twitter and social media in general would qualify. 

The next thing to look at will be the midterms.  If there is any gain in the House, that would be a clear indication of a realignment.  If the Democrats collapse in the Senate elections, that would be a firm indication.  A Republican gain of 1-2 seats, or a loss, would be a weak indication.

[J. J.]

On the second point, there have been several presidents and major party nominees that have not held elective office. Taylor, Scott, McClellan, Hancock, Grant, and Eisenhower were generals; Parker and Hughes were judges.  Cass, Taft, and Hoover had been in the Cabinet.

Only Wendel Wilkie (R) and Donald Trump had never held elective office, was not a general, a judge, or held a cabinet post. 

[J. J.]

I think that 2016 is certainly the beginning of a realignment ... towards the Democrats.

EDIT: Let me elaborate a bit. The Lincoln Industrial realignment had the North and industrial labor and business behind it, and they were growing. The New Dealers had the working class behind it, which was hugely behind FDR. Reagan had the growing suburban majority. What's the Trump realigning group?

1.  I'm talking about a realignment, but not necessarily a Republican one.  Looking at the original page, it would have been a Democratic one, long term.

2.  Trump seems to have populists, the white working class, and the old social conservatives.  There was not one single group in the famous "New Deal Coalition."

[J. J.]

I think that 2016 is certainly the beginning of a realignment ... towards the Democrats.

EDIT: Let me elaborate a bit. The Lincoln Industrial realignment had the North and industrial labor and business behind it, and they were growing. The New Dealers had the working class behind it, which was hugely behind FDR. Reagan had the growing suburban majority. What's the Trump realigning group?

1.  I'm talking about a realignment, but not necessarily a Republican one.  Looking at the original page, it would have been a Democratic one, long term.

2.  Trump seems to have populists, the white working class, and the old social conservatives.  There was not one single group in the famous "New Deal Coalition."

1. Are you of the opinion we're moving towards a Democratic realignment in the coming decade or undecided? Can't really tell from your posts.

2. Interestingly, the groups you list in the Trump coalition are all shrinking. No religion is the fastest growing religious group; white working class folks are shrinking (by educational status), and the populists...well. Any long term GOP populist groups would need Latinos within the GOP coalition. That's true, the New Deal coalition united urban immigrant whites (including the old Polish & Eastern European contingents), African Americans, and the South.

Actually, I am looking at signs to see if one is occurring.  I thought that, if they had been a Republican victory in 2008, we might have seen one 2012.

I am not certain that they are shirking, and least as a percentage of actual voters. 

[J. J.]

1. What enduring coalition was formed here? Trump deepened support among working class whites, a demographic that Republicans already had strong ties to and one that is declining in numbers as they age and people become more and more educated. Every year this group's electoral influence shrinks noticeably as college educated white influence increases (at least as a share of the white electorate)

We don't know what coalitions will be permanent or not. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And, there is no guarantee that the current 30-44 will not turn to Trump.  For example, in 1984, Reagan won across all demographic groups, except African Americans.  He didn't will all in 1980.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ah, Wisconsin, yes.  Pennsylvania?  Hillary almost moved here.   

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Way to early.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Again, it may not involve any "minority" inroads.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Again, we don't know what the future will hold. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The one thing we didn't have this time was a blowout.  I see realignments taking place over 6 year period (1978-84; 1930-36).  We did have a precursor event in 2014, in the midterms.  We also have a shift in some states.  2018 may be the key.  If we were to see the Republicans hold or increase their numbers in the House and dramatically gain seats in the Senate, we might see a realignment.