Two Guesses

[Skill and Chance]

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.   

[J. J.]

So, a realignment is when there is an end to the polarization and basically it becomes about the establishment or reestablishment of a national party machine and how the other party becomes relevant again.

Not necessarily. 

[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. 

[Person Man]

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.

[AmericanNation]

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.   

[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. 

[Skill and Chance]

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.

If the federal government is under 1 party control when the EU goes into full meltdown, that party can expect to get creamed in the next congressional cycle and be at a disadvantage in the next 3 presidential cycles.  Running against Santorum or Elizabeth Warren might save them in 2016, but that's about it.

However, if there is divided government when the EU goes down, the prospects are a bit brighter for the incumbent president.  If Romney needs Reid or Obama needs Boehner to ratify his plan, the crisis becomes nonpartisan.  It might actually be spun as a positive "crossing the aisle in our time of need" moment.  Democrats likely won't be getting the House back even if Obama wins, but Romney should really be praying that Republicans don't get the Senate either.

[Alcon]

here is my view on the coming realignment:

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

[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.

[Person Man]

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.

[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. 

[Sol]

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?

[Person Man]

Let's see if they last. The big gains in the South Atlantic and Rockies might offset the loss of the Great Lakes.

2000

2020

[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. 

[Person Man]

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.

[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. 

[Frodo]

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? 

[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. 

[Person Man]

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?

[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. 

[Skill and Chance]

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.
 

[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. 

[Skill and Chance]

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. 

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.

[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. 

[Person Man]

Basically, this year isn't going to be a realignment year. Perhaps 2016 will be different...but if the economy continues to grow at a rate that is steady but not fast enough to create much risk, its reasonable that there could be an unemployment rate in the high 5s or low 6s in 2016. Whoever is in office will probably be given as much credit as Bush got with dealing with 9/11 and the .com crash. That being said, whoever wins will have his party perhaps gain 1% in the two party vote and perhaps win another state or two in 2016. Subsequently, the market, however stable, will probably correct before 2020 without much of a recovery yet. That being said, the opposing party will probably win by a convincing, but not overwhelming margin. We could be looking at "business as usual" for at least another decade. ..but knowing how the last 25 years have gone (end of the Cold War, The internet, 9/11, The American Expansionism That Followed it, the Housing bust and Obama)...I'm pretty sure there will be another big wave of easy money (internet, houses),  war (Iran, Syria), megastorm( one big enough to change the broader course of history and be blamed on Global Warming), or market crash/mass firing....I'm actually am amazed there hasn't been anything bigger...and if the 2010s don't turnout more eventful than the 2000s and there is no realignment this year, "business as usual" could be the case. That's pretty much what 1947 to 1961 was...and basically how things have been between 1991 and now.  

The only way that our country would go from being "kinda conservative" to "really conservative" or even to "kinda liberal" in this environment would be demographics. Of course there's more browns, but there are also more olds...and with things seemingly and steadily calming down or getting used to the craziness, if Romney pulls out an upset or Obama pulls away, I would look  at  the age and ethnicity of the electorate before anything else.