2004 as a realigning election?

[Beet]

Walter Dean Burnham, professor emeritus at University of Texas at Austin, who is the nation's leading theorist of realignment, wrote in 1970 that realignments are periodic events "with peaks spaced approximately 36-38 years apart." Looking from this angle we can see:

1860- First Republican victory. Republicans go on to win 6 of the next 8 elections.
1896 (36 years later)- Establishes majority Republican dominance of the North and West. Republicans go on to win 6 of the next 8 elections (and would have won em all if not for TR).
1932 (36 years later)- Establishes the FDR coalition. Democrats go on to win 6 of the next 8 elections.
1968 (36 years later)- First southern Republican majority. Republicans go on to win 5 of the next 8 elections.
2004 (36 years later)- Establishes majority Republican dominance of the South and

[Schmitz in 1972]

I don't think so. I've always said that 1994 was the most important election in the past 30 or so years (with the possible exception of 1980). 2004 was merely a continuation of the Republican rule that depending on your point of view began in '68, '80, or '94

[George W. Bush]

I don't think so. I've always said that 1994 was the most important election in the past 30 or so years (with the possible exception of 1980). 2004 was merely a continuation of the Republican rule that depending on your point of view began in '68, '80, or '94

Why 94?

[Alcon]

2000


2004


The electorate has been REVOLUTIONIZED!

I think this election mostly further established trends and showed that the electorate is amazingly divided. To be specific, I think it established that 2000 was a realigning election.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

all it did is prove what we've known since 2000: the country is very split.

[nclib]

2000


2004


The electorate has been REVOLUTIONIZED!

I think this election mostly further established trends and showed that the electorate is amazingly divided. To be specific, I think it established that 2000 was a realigning election.

I do think that 2000 was a realigning election, because of the Democratic dominance in the cities and the Republican success in the countryside.

As your maps show, this country is as evenly divided as in 2000.

Bush didn't win a single state that Gore carried by more than 1% in 2000.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The electorate is polarised towards Bush not towards the Parties.
Maps could be very different in 4 years time

[minionofmidas]

Walter Dean Burnham, professor emeritus at University of Texas at Austin, who is the nation's leading theorist of realignment, wrote in 1970 that realignments are periodic events "with peaks spaced approximately 36-38 years apart." Looking from this angle we can see:

1860- First Republican victory. Republicans go on to win 6 of the next 8 elections.
1896 (36 years later)- Establishes majority Republican dominance of the North and West. Republicans go on to win 6 of the next 8 elections (and would have won em all if not for TR).
1932 (36 years later)- Establishes the FDR coalition. Democrats go on to win 6 of the next 8 elections.
1968 (36 years later)- First southern Republican majority. Republicans go on to win 5 of the next 8 elections.
2004 (36 years later)- Establishes majority Republican dominance of the South and

Me, I'm just surprised a guy who falls for this typical example of popular magic in the modern age still gets called a scientist.
What you do is take the two prime examples in American history of what's known in America as Realignment, 1896 and 1932 (although even 32 is qualified-the post-Depression pattern of regional strongholds isn't developed until 1940), and notice that you get important elections at the same intervals before 96.
1860 - although the realigning election in question was of course 1856, this was the first Republican victory
1824 - although the realigning election in question was of course 1828, this is the first election with popular vote data and the election the old Republican party broke up over
1789 - first ever election under the new constitiution. Need I say more?
And then say: This rout we suffered last year didn't mean owt since there must be another realigning elecition around the corner, in 1968.
Somehow, this spin legend survived. Maybe because it's just so neat looking.
There is no single major realigning election between 1948 and 1994, it was very much a gradual process.
As for 2004, yes, the realigning elections were 94 and 00, not 04.

[A18]

Someone explain this realignment concept to me. What was realigning about 1896 and 2000?

[minionofmidas]

Someone explain this realignment concept to me. What was realigning about 1896 and 2000?

2000 ain't quite so obvious...realignments tend to take some time.
1896 though is a picture postcard case...okay the picture postcard case.

If you take a look at the election 1876-1892, you'll notice that state results are fairly static and that, outside the trans-Rocky West, State swings are pretty uniform.
The same is true for the elections 1896-1908.
Now compare the 1892 and 1896 elections. You'll notice strongly increased Rep margins in the Northeast, a number of Upper Southern states changing overnight from fairly solid Dem to fairly solid Rep, increased Dem margins in the Deep South, and of course, a swathe of new Dem territory in the Western Interior.
That's what you call a realignment. The coalitions that the parties are made up of changing, with one group of voters deserting one party pretty much en bloc, another one joining it.

[J. J.]

I would argue, and did at the time, that 1984 was the "relignment election."  We are seeing a continuation of that pattern.  The elections to look at is 2016 and 2020.

I argued, at the time, that it was a conservative but not necessary a Republican realignment.  I would argue that, possibly excepting Kerry, all national party nominees of both parties have been to the right of the national party candidates in 1976.

[elcorazon]

I would argue, and did at the time, that 1984 was the "relignment election."  We are seeing a continuation of that pattern.  The elections to look at is 2016 and 2020.

I argued, at the time, that it was a conservative but not necessary a Republican realignment.  I would argue that, possibly excepting Kerry, all national party nominees of both parties have been to the right of the national party candidates in 1976.

I agree with this analysis.  Even Kerry may be to the right of the typical candidates pre-1976.  That's one reason the whole "liberal media" myth bugs me so much.  There are very few liberals left with any power.  Kerry is only a "liberal" in comparison to all the conservatives in Congress.

[minionofmidas]

I would argue, and did at the time, that 1984 was the "relignment election."  We are seeing a continuation of that pattern.  The elections to look at is 2016 and 2020.

I argued, at the time, that it was a conservative but not necessary a Republican realignment.  I would argue that, possibly excepting Kerry, all national party nominees of both parties have been to the right of the national party candidates in 1976.

The whole realignment idea is about relative shifts really, so a "Conservative realignment" doesn't really make too much sense...and we've seen massive alignment changes since then. Just look at Dukakis' rural strength and suburban weakness.

[Gustaf]

I would put it differently. The realignment began, at it's very early stage, in 1948 and then continued gradually until 1968 or possibly 1972 which can be said to mark a clear swing. Then the swing on the presidential level starts reaching the congressional level in the 90s. The next realignment is already underway and began somewhere in the late 80s/early 90s.

[Sam Spade]

I would put it differently. The realignment began, at it's very early stage, in 1948 and then continued gradually until 1968 or possibly 1972 which can be said to mark a clear swing. Then the swing on the presidential level starts reaching the congressional level in the 90s. The next realignment is already underway and began somewhere in the late 80s/early 90s.

This sounds correct to me.

[Ben.]

 

The electorate is polarised towards Bush not towards the Parties.
Maps could be very different in 4 years time

I'd agree to an extent, but also on social issues, however I’d argue that a pretty solid majority of Americans could be called traditionalist so that may not be that important, the division may be a product of Bush's style and positioning of himself and the GOP... I don't see a great deal changing if there is no significant change within both party's that said the Democratic leadership has to an extent worked to "box its self in" allowing support in the south to collapse and even endangering the partys base within the Midwest... the Republicans wouldn't be hurting themselves to strengthen their position in the Midwest and even work in the north east, however they are far better positioned than the Dems who need to retrieve their position in the Midwest while keeping their flanks on the coast secure and try against the odds to rebuild some kind of base in the south… important in this will be who leads the party in both the House and the Senate and weather they accept the need for a “national stragergy” rather than effectively saying that “democrats in the south or Midwest distancing themselves from the party to get elected is a good thing” a national platform and approach both for the senate and the house with more moderate leadership in the House is desperately needed IMHO… and it will also be interesting to see what happens with the DNC as well as who gets the nomination in 2008.

[jaichind]

Last two cycles, 1928-1932 and 1964-1968 both had the realignment take place after a peak of support for the ruling party.  1928 was a GOP blowout and same for 1964 and Democrats.  I tend to see 2004 as the election before a major realigment election, most likely to the Democrats, in 2008.  The GOP finally firmly captured control of all three branches of government at the same time in 2004.  For me this is their peak, just like the GOP in 1928 and 1964 for the Democrats.  There is no where to go but down.  2008 or 2012 will see a major realignment to the Democrats, in my view.  All the mistakes of 2000-2004 both domestic and foreign policy will come home to roost and Bush/GOP will take the blame.  A Democratic Era is coming.

[A18]

There was already a vote on those "mistakes." Guess what? We won.

[CARLHAYDEN]

While there is good evidence of a cyclical nature of national party politics, the suggestion that a cycle starts/ends on a dramatic "realignment" is specious.

For every cycle, save the first one, there was ample evidence of trends pointing to the new alignment.

[AuH2O]

It is not necessarily accurate to say the US has 'moved right' or something to that effect since XXXX year (1976 being offered previously as an example). On some issues, the leftists have simply lost- gun control, a strong standing military, unlimited welfare, etc. But on others the right has done poorly, often by the work of "Republicans." The runaway budget, culture of Washington, Inc. (government solves all problems), etc. Republicans are also very timid on certain issues even if their actual views might be conservative.

The only clear trend I can identify- and it's fairly constant since the Civil War- is the growing power of the government. Since there is a finite (100% total) distribution of power, that means other entities have lost power. The two losers are: 1) US citizens and 2) foreign countries. Both are now completely beholden to the US government, even in a society predicated on "free speech" and "liberty." While the US is admittedly superior to occupation regimes (Germany) and communist ones (Canada, France, the Netherlands, etc.), it falls far short of its original ideal.

The Republicans and Democrats are only in opposition insofar as they both agree on preserving a system that guarantees one the #1 spot and the other the #2 spot. When the Democrats lost their hold on the South, this arrangement became supremely easy to maintain (by making the two parties roughly equal in overall strength). Thus, I would say 1964 would represent the most critical election in terms of understanding the present political balance.

In fact, this system does not really produce more disagreement than a one-party state, and may even produce less. The only means of acquiring power is to brainwash a slightly larger portion of the population or propose ideas that they can easily understand as benefitial. Democrats rely more on the former, Republicans the latter, but neither method is exclusive to one party. Presidential term limits were successful in preventing another cult of personality, as surrounded FDR and Stalin, but they do not guarantee a high quality of leadership.

Nothing has been realigned, the GOP simply enjoys a temporary structural advantage they are willing to concede (intentionally) by spending too much and allowing in hordes of poor Mexicans. These policies allow for the parties to remain at parity with a minimum of actual work in defining the electorate. On the balance, the GOP has won by succeeding in partially preserving the 2nd Amendment, which is the only real counterbalance to US government power (and even then it's fairly weak).

[Gabu]

While the US is admittedly superior to occupation regimes (Germany) and communist ones (Canada, France, the Netherlands, etc.), it falls far short of its original ideal.

I'm fairly sure that Canada, France, and the Netherlands all have the majority of their businesses not owned by the state, and I'm fairly sure that they all have currency that one can amass if one so chooses, so I'm not sure what your definition of "communist" is...

[A18]

High taxes. Public health care.

[Nym90]

com·mu·nism
n.
A theoretical economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members.
Communism
A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people.
The Marxist-Leninist version of Communist doctrine that advocates the overthrow of capitalism by the revolution of the proletariat.

------

So no, I don't think Canada fits that definition.

[A18]

It's better described as socialist.

[Nym90]

so·cial·ism
n.
Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.