Two Guesses

[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? 

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?

[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. 

[Chartist]

2.  There were no coattails. 

The Democrats won every competitive Senate race plus a big upset in North Dakota.

[Frodo]

2.  There were no coattails. 

The Democrats won every competitive Senate race plus a big upset in North Dakota.

As well as making gains in state legislatures outside the South.
 

[Mr.Phips]

2.  There were no coattails. 

The Democrats won every competitive Senate race plus a big upset in North Dakota.

As well as making gains in state legislatures outside the South.
 

That pretty much happens whenever a President is reelected. 

[Mr.Phips]

2.  There were no coattails. 

The Democrats won every competitive Senate race plus a big upset in North Dakota.

That was more due to the strength of their candidates, rather than Obama  In House races, if Obama had real coattails, Democrats probably would have taken back the chamber. 

[opebo]

In House races, if Obama had real coattails, Democrats probably would have taken back the chamber. 

Isn't that pretty much impossible due to gerrymandering?

[J. J.]

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

[Person Man]

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

I was asking you that in a couple of threads. The "realignment" might have been the replacement of Rovian Conservatism with traditional  Nationalism. You were probably a lot happier with a Romney win. Instead of rich v. poor, it is now the "traditional populations" vs. "everyone else".

[Kingpoleon]

What sort of re-alignment?

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

Bah J.J. Bah.

It's a roundabout way of saying, I have a gut feeling that politics will change dramatically in the next decade, that the 2010's will look like the 1980's or 1930's, but not this year.

So we will finally have three parties in the US:
The Greens
The Democrats
The Social Democrats

Good call   

I think it will be something dramatic, but I don't know what.  A few possibilities:

1.  An end to "racial" politics. (Good)
2.  A more authoritarian culture.  (Probably bad)
3.  Less religion in politics. (Good)
4.  More religion in politics. (Bad)
5.  A consensus on environmental issues. (Probably good)
6.  An end to "class warfare" politics. (Good)
7.  Division into class politics.  (Bad)

I don't know, but these are options.

No to 1, 5, and 6. Yes to 2, 7. Unsure about 3, 4.

[Person Man]

What sort of re-alignment?

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

Bah J.J. Bah.

It's a roundabout way of saying, I have a gut feeling that politics will change dramatically in the next decade, that the 2010's will look like the 1980's or 1930's, but not this year.

So we will finally have three parties in the US:
The Greens
The Democrats
The Social Democrats

Good call   

I think it will be something dramatic, but I don't know what.  A few possibilities:

1.  An end to "racial" politics. (Good)
2.  A more authoritarian culture.  (Probably bad)
3.  Less religion in politics. (Good)
4.  More religion in politics. (Bad)
5.  A consensus on environmental issues. (Probably good)
6.  An end to "class warfare" politics. (Good)
7.  Division into class politics.  (Bad)

I don't know, but these are options.

No to 1, 5, and 6. Yes to 2, 7. Unsure about 3, 4.

I talked about "fascism", he said that we would still have a pluralistic system. Now I see that maybe we were both right?

[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. 

[The_Doctor]

Your own article says:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It also feels that Trumpism isn't a long lasting ideology and I tend to agree.

More ever, I disagree with this analysis. Jackson continued the Jefferson - inaugurated majority, McKinley the Lincoln industrial economy, and Roosevelt was a realigning President. Reagan's coalition has clearly lasted and shaped the presidencies and Congresses of his successors.

You might want to consider 2008-2016 as a dealigning era, where we move away from the Reagan Republican era and no party holds the majority stakes.

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?

[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."

[The_Doctor]

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.

[Virginiá]

Honestly I can't see a solid argument at all for 2016 being any sort of realignment, especially a GOP realignment (I'll illustrate why). It's probably just a freak election that took place in a broader range of time that (still) includes negative GOP trends:

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)

2. Trump bombed among the voters that will replace the aging boomers/silent generation people. In fact, he did 4% worse among the 30-44 group than Romney, which is something you'd expect as the more liberal Millennials and younger genx'ers age into that bracket - These voters are heavily Democratic and have shown little movement away from the Democratic Party as they have aged.

3. Trump's victory was carried out in major part by peeling off rust belt states that the Democratic nominee was a terrible fit for and due to her brain trust's infinite wisdom, almost completely neglected. In addition to this, these states have been bleeding electoral votes and House seats for years now and are set to continue into the future. This is literally the opposite of an enduring coalition.

4. In all likelihood Trump is going to have a rough 4 years. He isn't even president yet and influence peddling, stock market tricks and crony capitalism is hanging over his transition like a dark cloud. This has great potential to be the most corrupt administration since Nixon, or perhaps further back. Of course various Trump supporters would dispute this, and I'm not really going to argue it simply because I feel like Trump himself and his transition's comings and goings speak for themselves.

When/if the Trump administration's unsavory activities spill into the limelight and his supporters get increasingly annoyed that he isn't fixing their very real problems, support for him will waver if a proper opposition is formed.

5. Trump is not going to help Republicans expand their minority outreach. He did better, but doing as good as some pre-Obama candidates is not an achievement. Republicans need to do a lot better to remain viable in a future where the minority share of the electorate continues to surge every 4 years. Any idea of a Republican 'realignment' has to include major inroads with minority voters. That did not happen.

6. People don't like Trump. They don't trust him and they don't even think he has the temperament, yet they voted for him anyway because his opponent was worse in their eyes. She was the personification of the corrupt establishment and wealthy elite, and there is a good argument in that Trump would have lost to someone like Biden, Warren and so on. This isn't a game-changer. This is a very awful person who got a very lucky break.


The data and overall outlook for the GOP is still pretty bad, and now they have to deal with a possibly devastating Trump midterm right before the next round of redistricting. Given everything I've just said, the possibility of some sort of a recession in the next 4 years and tales of corruption, 2020 could be bad for the GOP as well, costing them dearly for the 2020s.

Plus, I'd also like to state that I think true realignments that occur in just one election are exceedingly rare and often made possible because of existing trends. Realignments in general take place over time and by the time they reach critical mass, usually result in some blowout elections and periods of sustained party dominance. Pretty much nothing suggests any sort of continued Republican dominance. The question now is when they are swept away, not if.

[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.

[The_Doctor]

Another thought. Realigning parties tend to be fairly strong, right? They tend to have stable leaderships, stable relationships between the party elite and the base, and generally on the same page? I think this is another strike against the GOP remaining the majority party (which they are).

I kinda feel Bush 43 was the confirmation of Reagan's realignment like McKinley was the confirmation of Lincoln's realignment and so on.

[Virginiá]

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.

If you had said 18-29, that would be an easier sell. 30-44 year old people have already begun to cement worldviews and opinions of the parties. It would take a substantial event to shake that, and you'll have to forgive me but Trump, holding dear so much that Millennials/some genx'ers despise, I really, highly doubt they are going to flock to him. The fact that Trump is so widely known and opinions of him so thoroughly baked in based on numerous scandals, including sexual assault claims, bigotry and awful treatment of women makes it very difficult to see this demographic ever warming to him, hence his really, really bad favorables among the group. It's not like Reagan, who could charm an audience and wasn't embroiled in so many personal scandals and lacking any sort of integrity. Reagan wasn't viewed as a bigoted sexual predator, either. It'll basically be impossible for Trump to outgrow that image.

But, if you believe it could happen, then I won't argue. I just think you're wrong, but I can't see the future.

Reagan did win across many groups, but they didn't all stick to Republicans after that. Winning over a group in one election is not the same as changing their voting habits long-term.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, yes. Michigan is definitely a candidate for a flip had she invested heavily there. Wisconsin as well. Given how close it was without serious investment, there is an argument to be had that it could have been flipped and that without much investment, Pennsylvania might have been a somewhat larger Trump win. The only one here that I feel very safe about saying this for is Michigan, though, ftr.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Of course, but there is a reason I didn't even want to debate it really. Trump supporters can't seem to see the massive problems with their own candidate that are clear as day, similar to how Hillary supporters rationalized and downplayed her problems (I was good at that over the summer myself until becoming filled with anxiety in the fall)

It's the same phenomena meant when a person is said to be "too close" to a person/situation to see it clearly. They look right past vulnerabilities or problems that should be obvious to them. Law enforcement has certain regulations in part to prevent things like this.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So beginning to win 70%+ whites? Because that is what it is going to take going into the future. Every 4 years it's going to take more and more until white birthrates significantly pick up and others slow down.

In this case it's worth noting that Trump didn't even win more white voters than Romney. He made up for that when Clinton won less slightly than Obama '12.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If you believe realignments to be an event taking place over a period of time and not one election, large GOP gains in 2018 would make more sense. The traditional idea of a realignment "election" would have suggested GOP gains downballot (Senate/House) this year and then in 2018 as well.

How would you define a realignment exactly? It's not just about national elections. Realignments are like glaciers in other respects. In the South, it took decades for Democrats to be ousted from various levels of government. They slowly lost House seats over years, and over similar periods of time - often longer, slowly got bled out in state legislatures. It took Republicans so long to oust Democrats from the Virginia legislature despite VA going Rep. since Eisenhower (LBJ is hard to factor into this given his large win), that by the time the GOP took over, the state was already beginning to trend Democratic again and is now manifesting itself in statewide elections.

There probably is no default period of time for a realignment. It all depends on what voter groups the rising party is making inroads with, and how fast, and what events happen along the way that help speed up or slow down the transition (eg, Nixon slowing down Republicans vs my idea that Trump will speed up Democrats')


*edit: added to #1