Most influential election

[RJ]

Which election(s) do you think were very important as in setting a trend for years to come? I didn't make this a poll since I didn't want to write in every election, but if I get enough ideas for which ones people think are important, I will.

Criteria for "influential" is that it set some type of a trend that effected political thinking or political conclusions for years to come. For example I would think that even though the 1932 election was such a landslide, it established certain policies and political views along with democrats occupying the white house 28 of the next 36 years, not to mention holding a handsome majority in the house 20 straight years. My thinking would also indicate that Reagan's reelection bid in 1984 would not fall into this category since (1) Mondale was such a joke as a candidate (2) it didn't really set a standard or establish a dominance one party has over the other in a particular issue and so on. These are just examples.

One of my choices would be the election of 1968. It was thought after 1964 that the Republican party was in bad shape after being beaten soundly after running what many thought was a political extremist in Goldwater. Democrats seemed to be dictating the political waves and really had their way, and it appeared to be heading that way for years to come. However, 4 years later, here comes Nixon out of the woodwork to run. Democrats are up to their ears in controversy with the war going on. The always reliable South had abandoned them(civil rights?) even though this had taken effect in the previous election. The ever popular Lyndon Johnson backed out of the race before it ever even started. Humphrey, as a result,  lost to Nixon and I feel this election was the "turn of the tide" that really shaped what we have today. Since then, Democrats have only had 1 two term president to the Republicans 3, been locked out of the white house for 28 of the forty years by 2008, finally lost their majority in the house, and so on. Now, Republicans seem to be dictating things to the Democrats.

What does everyone think? Which elections do you think are the most influential?

[Rob]

1896: McKinley's victory over Bryan destroyed the equilibrium between the parties and resulted in GOP dominance until the Depression.

1932: FDR's landslide victory was a rejection of the GOP's laissez-faire philosophy, and established a Democratic majority.

1968: Although Nixon's victory was narrow, his vote combined with George Wallace's was 57 percent- a strong repudiation of the liberal Democrats. This ended the New Deal Democratic majority.

There haven't been any realigning elections since then.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

1896: McKinley's victory over Bryan destroyed the equilibrium between the parties and resulted in GOP dominance until the Depression.

1932: FDR's landslide victory was a rejection of the GOP's laissez-faire philosophy, and established a Democratic majority.

1968: Although Nixon's victory was narrow, his vote combined with George Wallace's was 57 percent- a strong repudiation of the liberal Democrats. This ended the New Deal Democratic majority.

There haven't been any realigning elections since then.

I agree with that (although to a certain extent 1928 was prequel of '32).
There's probably going to be another realignment soon (conditions seem to exist for it, whatwith small town discontent and the growth of protest voting etc), although we won't know it until after it happens.

[dazzleman]

I would rate 1980 as a highly influential election.  If Reagan had not been elected, we would probably still be dealing with the Soviet Union, and we would not have had the economic growth that we had for the past 25 years.

Reagan's victory changed the Republican Party, taking it away from the old country club defensive conservatism, which amounted to implementing the Democratic program at a slower pace, to a more dynamic type of offensive conservatism, for better or worse.

I think that 1980 also completed some of the realignment of the south that had begun in 1968.  While this process was suspended in 1976, the south narrowly went Republican in 1980 even with a southerner at the top of the Democratic ticket.

I was also say that 1976 was the death knell of the old New Deal coalition.  It made one more appearance that year, the first since 1964, before being permanently put to rest.  The results of 1980 and after permanently broke the New Deal coalition of northern liberals and southern conservatives.

I also think 1992 was a realigning election, and set the stage for the red state/blue state configuration we have today.  Within certain segments of the population, Republicans have never recovered the level of support that they had prior to 1992.  Clinton in his way made it socially acceptable for certain demographic groups to vote Democratic, whereas before they had voted Republican.  This has put states like Connecticut, New Jersey, New York, Illinois, California, Washington and a few others out of reach of the Republicans for the forseeable future.

[phk]

Clinton revolutionized Illinois and California.

and it wasn't till 1992 when the Northeast as a whole rejected the GOP.

[Sam Spade]

1896: McKinley's victory over Bryan destroyed the equilibrium between the parties and resulted in GOP dominance until the Depression.

1932: FDR's landslide victory was a rejection of the GOP's laissez-faire philosophy, and established a Democratic majority.

1968: Although Nixon's victory was narrow, his vote combined with George Wallace's was 57 percent- a strong repudiation of the liberal Democrats. This ended the New Deal Democratic majority.

There haven't been any realigning elections since then.

This is the best answer.

Of course, different politicians have changed different areas for the parties to focus in on and develop.

Clinton helped change the NE suburbs, along with Chicago and LA suburbs from Rep-leaning to Dem. leaning, giving the Democrats edges in those states where they had been Rep. before (you can see the transfer starting in 1988).

For Bush, two main areas strike me as being affected by him in Presidential elections.  Time remains to tell whether these affects will be more permanent, but I'm pretty sure the first is and I'm decently sure about the second.

First is the switch in Appalachia from voting Democrat in Pres. elections (where it has for ages) to voting Republican (Hasn't yet occurred at the state level in some places).  This has strengthened Republican holds on West Virginia, Kentucky and Tennessee and has kept Ohio and Pennsylvania at equilibrium, even with continued draining away from the old GOP suburbs.

Second is the gains in the Hispanic vote.  These haven't shown up at the state level either, but they have impacted Texas, New Mexico and Florida greatly at the Pres election, especially last election cycle.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

To be honest I don't think either Gipper, Bubba or Dubya have actually changed the voting patterns anywhere, although I realise it's sometimes nice to imagine that they did.

[dazzleman]

To be honest I don't think either Gipper, Bubba or Dubya have actually changed the voting patterns anywhere, although I realise it's sometimes nice to imagine that they did.

I agree with you on Dubya, but disagree on the Gipper and Bubba.  I do think that Bubba led significant groups of people into the Democratic party, and they have remained there through 2 elections without Bubba at the head of the ticket.

As far as the Gipper is concerned, I think he finished what Nixon started with respect to the south.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

To be honest I don't think either Gipper, Bubba or Dubya have actually changed the voting patterns anywhere, although I realise it's sometimes nice to imagine that they did.

I agree with you on Dubya, but disagree on the Gipper and Bubba.  I do think that Bubba led significant groups of people into the Democratic party, and they have remained there through 2 elections without Bubba at the head of the ticket.

As far as the Gipper is concerned, I think he finished what Nixon started with respect to the south.

I'll admit that Gipper did have some influence in that he stopped a possible (partial) reverse of the '68 changes... but I'm not convinced about Bubba.

[dazzleman]

To be honest I don't think either Gipper, Bubba or Dubya have actually changed the voting patterns anywhere, although I realise it's sometimes nice to imagine that they did.

I agree with you on Dubya, but disagree on the Gipper and Bubba.  I do think that Bubba led significant groups of people into the Democratic party, and they have remained there through 2 elections without Bubba at the head of the ticket.

As far as the Gipper is concerned, I think he finished what Nixon started with respect to the south.

I'll admit that Gipper did have some influence in that he stopped a possible (partial) reverse of the '68 changes... but I'm not convinced about Bubba.

Then what explains the fact that George H. W. Bush got support in urban areas, suburban areas, and certain sections of the country (California, Illinois, Connecticut, New Jersey, etc.) that his son could only dream about?  So many states carried by HW were never competitive for W.  I think it had a lot to do with Clinton attracting and cementing the allegiance of certain groups of people to the Democratic party.

[Redefeatbush04]

1789

[Filuwaúrdjan]

To be honest I don't think either Gipper, Bubba or Dubya have actually changed the voting patterns anywhere, although I realise it's sometimes nice to imagine that they did.

I agree with you on Dubya, but disagree on the Gipper and Bubba.  I do think that Bubba led significant groups of people into the Democratic party, and they have remained there through 2 elections without Bubba at the head of the ticket.

As far as the Gipper is concerned, I think he finished what Nixon started with respect to the south.

I'll admit that Gipper did have some influence in that he stopped a possible (partial) reverse of the '68 changes... but I'm not convinced about Bubba.

Then what explains the fact that George H. W. Bush got support in urban areas, suburban areas, and certain sections of the country (California, Illinois, Connecticut, New Jersey, etc.) that his son could only dream about?  So many states carried by HW were never competitive for W.  I think it had a lot to do with Clinton attracting and cementing the allegiance of certain groups of people to the Democratic party.

I see your point up to a point... but a bigger factor may be corruption in suburban GOP machines and general demographic trends (what were outer suburbs in '88 are often inner suburbs now)... I don't know whether Bubba himself was the cause of it.
Maybe in one or two suburban counties.

[dazzleman]

I see your point up to a point... but a bigger factor may be corruption in suburban GOP machines and general demographic trends (what were outer suburbs in '88 are often inner suburbs now)... I don't know whether Bubba himself was the cause of it.
Maybe in one or two suburban counties.

I think corruption is suburban GOP machines is a relatively minor factor in presidential elections.  You underestimate that sea change that has taken place in large parts of the suburbs that used to be solidly Republican.  Clinton is not the only factor, a president never is, but I definitely think he attracted a certain type of suburban voter that previous Democrats were unable to attract.

I'll use my town as a small example.  It is fairly well-off town, though there is some economic diversity, with the population ranging from lower middle class to wealthy.  Predominantly, it is upper middle class, and almost entirely white.  In 1984, this town gave 72% of its votes to Ronald Reagan, but this year, the results were about 50-50 between Bush and Kerry.  At the same time, urban areas that always leaned Democratic have become much more heavily Democratic.  Those two things together have meant the loss, for the forseeable future, of states like New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, California, Illinois and others for the GOP.

At the same time, the GOP has solidified support in rural areas, particularly in the south.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I see your point up to a point... but a bigger factor may be corruption in suburban GOP machines and general demographic trends (what were outer suburbs in '88 are often inner suburbs now)... I don't know whether Bubba himself was the cause of it.
Maybe in one or two suburban counties.

I think corruption is suburban GOP machines is a relatively minor factor in presidential elections.  You underestimate that sea change that has taken place in large parts of the suburbs that used to be solidly Republican.  Clinton is not the only factor, a president never is, but I definitely think he attracted a certain type of suburban voter that previous Democrats were unable to attract.

I'll use my town as a small example.  It is fairly well-off town, though there is some economic diversity, with the population ranging from lower middle class to wealthy.  Predominantly, it is upper middle class, and almost entirely white.  In 1984, this town gave 72% of its votes to Ronald Reagan, but this year, the results were about 50-50 between Bush and Kerry.  At the same time, urban areas that always leaned Democratic have become much more heavily Democratic.  Those two things together have meant the loss, for the forseeable future, of states like New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, California, Illinois and others for the GOP.

At the same time, the GOP has solidified support in rural areas, particularly in the south.

I think a lot of that is to do with the fact that Bush has campaigned mostly on wedge issues and the fact that the Democrats have (stupidly IMO) replied in kind.

As for the forseeable future... I'm not so sure about that. I reckon that we'll see a fairly large shift in voting patterns fairly soon (although there never was a word as relative as "soon") although I dunno in which direction(s).

[dazzleman]

I see your point up to a point... but a bigger factor may be corruption in suburban GOP machines and general demographic trends (what were outer suburbs in '88 are often inner suburbs now)... I don't know whether Bubba himself was the cause of it.
Maybe in one or two suburban counties.

I think corruption is suburban GOP machines is a relatively minor factor in presidential elections.  You underestimate that sea change that has taken place in large parts of the suburbs that used to be solidly Republican.  Clinton is not the only factor, a president never is, but I definitely think he attracted a certain type of suburban voter that previous Democrats were unable to attract.

I'll use my town as a small example.  It is fairly well-off town, though there is some economic diversity, with the population ranging from lower middle class to wealthy.  Predominantly, it is upper middle class, and almost entirely white.  In 1984, this town gave 72% of its votes to Ronald Reagan, but this year, the results were about 50-50 between Bush and Kerry.  At the same time, urban areas that always leaned Democratic have become much more heavily Democratic.  Those two things together have meant the loss, for the forseeable future, of states like New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, California, Illinois and others for the GOP.

At the same time, the GOP has solidified support in rural areas, particularly in the south.

I think a lot of that is to do with the fact that Bush has campaigned mostly on wedge issues and the fact that the Democrats have (stupidly IMO) replied in kind.

As for the forseeable future... I'm not so sure about that. I reckon that we'll see a fairly large shift in voting patterns fairly soon (although there never was a word as relative as "soon") although I dunno in which direction(s).

We'll have to agree to disagree.  Nixon and Reagan both campaigned on wedge issues also.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I see your point up to a point... but a bigger factor may be corruption in suburban GOP machines and general demographic trends (what were outer suburbs in '88 are often inner suburbs now)... I don't know whether Bubba himself was the cause of it.
Maybe in one or two suburban counties.

I think corruption is suburban GOP machines is a relatively minor factor in presidential elections.  You underestimate that sea change that has taken place in large parts of the suburbs that used to be solidly Republican.  Clinton is not the only factor, a president never is, but I definitely think he attracted a certain type of suburban voter that previous Democrats were unable to attract.

I'll use my town as a small example.  It is fairly well-off town, though there is some economic diversity, with the population ranging from lower middle class to wealthy.  Predominantly, it is upper middle class, and almost entirely white.  In 1984, this town gave 72% of its votes to Ronald Reagan, but this year, the results were about 50-50 between Bush and Kerry.  At the same time, urban areas that always leaned Democratic have become much more heavily Democratic.  Those two things together have meant the loss, for the forseeable future, of states like New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, California, Illinois and others for the GOP.

At the same time, the GOP has solidified support in rural areas, particularly in the south.

I think a lot of that is to do with the fact that Bush has campaigned mostly on wedge issues and the fact that the Democrats have (stupidly IMO) replied in kind.

As for the forseeable future... I'm not so sure about that. I reckon that we'll see a fairly large shift in voting patterns fairly soon (although there never was a word as relative as "soon") although I dunno in which direction(s).

We'll have to agree to disagree.  Nixon and Reagan both campaigned on wedge issues also.

Very true... but they didn't run away from economic issues the way Bush did. Or more to the point, has been allowed to.

[Bono]

1789

Why does everyone keep saying that. Is there some kind of joke?

[RJ]

I will disagree that Reagan's victory in 1980 set a new standard or a principle. My logic would be simply that nothing distinctly different came out of Reagan's presidency or out of the fact that the Republicans in general created a new line of thinking which influenced things for a long time and made the parties adjust accordingly with their campaign and so on. I won't say that Reagan did not do anything monumental, just simply that I don't think politics were greatly influenced by him alone. He was a staunch conservative, and the Republicans already established they could win with a more to the right conservative some time before. I have all the respect in the world for Dazzleman's thoughts and posts and mean no disrespect towards them, but I will simply say I disagree at that.

On a side note, 1932 and 1968 were different in the respect that 1932 really concentrated on issues which the effects of were what was so important at the time and for years to come. Roosevelt promised change and delivered. Nixon, on the other hand, ran on a group of principles which do not seem as important today. Does anyone remember very much about his campaign in 1968? How about Roosevelt's in 1932? My point would be the issues are what was so important about 1932, while the result was what was really monumental in 1968. SInce then, I think the base of Conservative voters has grown at a much more rapid rate than liberal ones, and I think this has put Democrats at a disadvantage. One thing about Bush winning the election this year, I would speculate, is that with the obvious exception of occupying the highest office in our government and possibly writing new policies and laws, Republicans may not have very much to gain by winning this election from a historical standpoint. Although I don't like Bush, I mean no disrespect towards him when I say this. Think about it: If Republicans suceed in the next four years, the voting bases will stay about the same and the electoral college will be as volatile as it's been the last 2 elections meaning there is only the smallest margin for error next time around. If the GOP fails, they have no one to blame but themselves and the majority of the population will be at their throats the way they were with the Democrats in 1968 or even the GOP in 1932. I think Senator Al could be onto something when he says that 2008 could also be a realigning year if Republicans slip up, and historically when one party has all the cards, it winds up backfiring somewhere along the way.

1896 is probably worth looking at, but no one has mentioned 1860 or even 1912. Wilson certainly created issues with foreign policy that made both parties react and since change their positions. For example, Democrats were initially the "hawks" favoring military intervention while Republicans assumed a more subtle role in foreign affairs. This seems to be the exact opposite since the end of Viet Nam. What does everyone think?

[Notre Dame rules!]

I don't think that Bubba really changed voting patterns as he ran to the right of what he governed.  He wasn't true to himself, so how can voters be true to him?  

Likewise, Gore tried to run as a centrist, only slipping to the left in the last two weeks of the 2000 campaign.  Since then, Gore has become a moonbat.  Had he ran as one, Bush would have beaten him by 10 points--maybe more.

Kerry, too, tried to run as far more of a centrist than he really is, aided by the media.   It remains to be seen how a Democrat who remains true to his core values would fair in a nationa election today.  The closest we have come was in Dean's candidacy, and I believe tha most Dems realize that he would have been trounced in the General Election.  

Therefore, the reallignment of the '80 election remains basically intact if you factor in that Dems are having to run stealth campaigns in order to win a national election.  Even those, Clinton's '92 and '96 wins never topped the 50% threshold.

[MaC]

Reagan in 1980.  Before then, liberal Democrats did okay in elections.  Take into consideration, most people who voted  against Bush only did because it wasn't Bush.  Kerry had no real strengths and waffled on positions.  In 2000 Bush got elected due to the glitch in the system where electors, and not the people put him in office;  most people until this point never really even thought about it.  Gore's real sucess was based solely on riding on Bill's coattails. So, we have Reagan, Two Bushes, and Bill Clinton who's a moderate and campaigned in 1992 that he could be more Bush than Bush by being harder on crime and such.  So since then, Democrats in congress know that it's politcal suicide to call themselves liberal.   Maybe not THE most influential, but it's definately in the top 5.

[RJ]

I suppose I should clarify my position on 1980. I think Reagan rode a trend started in 1968 and helped develop it. I will say that Reagan did establish the GOP as more of a "hands on" type in foreign affairs. However, I think his policy was different from today's since no major conflicts came as they did later. I have to wonder: What would Reagan have done in Iraq over these last 15 or so years? He had a golden oppurtunity to invade Iran, change the face of the middle east, and did not. That's one thing I think did not stick after his presidency. Just my opinion.

[minionofmidas]

1932.

[Notre Dame rules!]

Why 1932?   No Republican could have won in 1932, not even if we had nominated Jesus Christ.   In the same way, no Democrat could have even come close to Bush had the election been held in 2002, just a year after 9-11.  Hell, 9-11 weighed very heavy on this election as it was, just as the Great Depression was omnipresent in the minds of voters in 1932.   What's your resoning?

[jaichind]

1864.  After Lincoln's victory and the various "reforms" after that you could say that the USA entered into its "Second Republic."  After 1864 it is just a different country on the relationship of federal government, state government, and citizen with each other.