I always think it's interesting (and criminally untalked about) how poorly Reagan did in the South in 1980 compared to the dominant "realignment" narrative that has come to rule our history books.
In addition to what Mikado said, it also depends on how you view realignments. Personally, I've always looked at them through the theory of generational turnover in addition to unique elections. In this case, it might be fair to say that Reagan took advantage of a favorable electorate, and whose presidency, over the course of 6 - 8 years, shifted it further towards Republicans.I didn't go in depth on my comment, but I just think the whole 1980 election gets misinterpreted as a "seal the deal on what 1968 started" election, and it doesn't appear that was the case. When you look at the county maps, Reagan got murdered in the rural South and in the counties where Wallace did best. The idea that a bunch of Dixiecrats preferred him over Carter because "they voted Republican now" is just not true. Reagan eaked out wins in suburban and urban counties JUST enough to tip those Southern states, and - with the exception of MS - there seemed to be a strong correlation between a state being a part of "The New South" and it voting for Reagan. I don't know, it's just a lot more interesting of a (true) story to look at all that than the usual textbook 1964 - 1968 - 1980 realignment bullshlt. Your generational turnover is obviously a much better theory.
