Two Guesses

[Smid]

I shall begin with a number of premises:

1. No policy foundation is perfect. No matter how perfect it may seem in theory, it won't work perfectly in practice and will always give rise to undesirable consequences.
2. Opposition to a policy foundation will form. This may be immediate, or it may be subsequent to the aforementioned undesirable consequences arising.
3. Those who oppose a particular policy foundation will always focus on the undesirable consequences in an attempt to sway public opinion to their way of thinking.
4. Eventually those who oppose the policy foundation will garner enough public support that there will be a strong shift away from the policy foundation to a new policy foundation that has been built upon by those who opposed the previous.
5. Just before the strong shift occurs, there may be a strong result in the opposite direction. This is because the opposition to the current policy foundation almost reaches the tipping point and those put forward a candidate who focuses on their alternative foundation. Because the opposition does not yet have enough support, they don't win, however the public that is completely satisfied with the status quo responds strongly to the opposition canddiate.

At the point where the public shifts from one policy foundation to another is the realignment. Because of the nature of elections, there will be a point at which the scales tip, but it may take a few years for them to tip completely (maybe three midterms?).

When this occurs, the party that dominated the previous policy foundation will do some soul searching and will be forced to re-invent itself with new candidates predominantly holding positions closer to where the lines are drawn with the realignment (for example, more conservative democrats or more liberal republicans).

I don't know if I have put that particularly clearly - I'm trying to say that opposition to a fundamental idea (not a single policy, but the foundation that links many policies) gradually rises. This might be military intervention (as opposed to the War in Iraq, which is a single policy only). It might be christian conservatism (as opposed to individual issues of abortion or gay marriage).

For this reason, I think any realignment would be more likely to be to the left rather than the right - although as JJ says, it could be leftish in some aspects and rightish in others.

Like JJ, I think a realignment is forming. When people are calling for change, and not just a new ideas, but a change in how things are actually done, it looks like people are ready to shift from one foundation to another. Also like JJ, I'm not sure what it's going to end up looking like, but I think it would probably typically be considered a shift to the left with more liberal democrats and more moderate republicans.

I'm not sure exactly what policies will be affected or what foundation specifically will be shifted, but my guess is that it's happening more in response to the War in Iraq being a crystalising issue showing perceived failures in a policy platform of overseas military intervention. I think that it will result in the US becoming somewhat more isolationist, a decrease in military spending, and a greater focus on US domestic issues such as health and education.

I think that this issue is the one that's most going to change, because the timing feels about right. Reagan increased military spending and there has been US intervention in Somalia and the Balkans before Iraq, Iraq is the tipping point where it hasn't been an immediate success in the eyes of the public and has been the issue that opponents of military intervention have been able to focus on (point 3 of my initial premises). As the 2006 mid-terms swung heavily against the Republicans as a backlash against the War in Iraq, I think that's the direction public opinion is heading.

Now... this is a long call to make, but I think that if this is the case, Indiana going to be a surprise state in November. It has over 100 casualties in Iraq (see http://projects.washingtonpost.com/fallen/states/ ) and had seats changing hands in 2006. I'm still doing some analysis on swings in the state there over the past few elections, but I think that it's going to either be quite close - and maybe even go dem for the first time in goodness knows how long.

In 2004, Bush received 60% of the vote to Kerry's 39% (I haven't looked at Congress figures yet). In 2006, Republican Congressional candidates received 49.90% of the vote to the Democrat Congressional candidates' 48.74%. I know that I've compared two different races, but I will do the 2004 Congressional figures shortly and update those figures.

[Smid]

I wasn't offering Indiana as a proof of my theory, I was suggesting that at this election Indiana could yield a surprising result. Then again, it might not... I was just making the suggestion.

[Smid]

Only on this point do I disagree.  I wouldn't call 1976 a strong shift to the left, when going back to 1936.  Same with the elections between 1868-1892.  I see that as almost a continuation with a break, in presidential elections, beginning with the first presidential elections of the re-alignment period.

I actually added that point in about halfway through my post. I'm not as firm on that one as some of the other parts - which is why I put in the word "may" in the first sentence of that point.

I'm afraid I can't compare and contrast the mood today with the mood in 76/80 - I was born in 1980.

[Smid]

That's a great way of putting it...but our nation is so much more different than it was in 1960 and 1828. There has to be a real dawn here. I mean, what could happen with two false dawns in a row. We are still reeling from Kent State, Vietnam and the collapse of the labor movement. What else could happen? - I will ask this-


WHAT'S THE WORST THAT CAN HAPPEN?

In the book, Freedomnomics, Dr John Lott writes on page 173:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

By "costly" and "easy" regulations, he is referring to regulations that make it easier or harder to cast a vote (for example, requiring voters to provide ID before voting).

It may be that the thirst for change in the 1960s dried up with the election of Richard Nixon. Rather than motivating young liberals to vote, it may in fact have reinforced a perception that their vote didn't count. Perhaps people were discouraged by the electoral loss of the Democrat candidate.

If this is the case, claims of voter fraud in Florida and Ohio in the past two presidential elections may actually harm the cause of the Democrats, because it is telling people that their vote doesn't count - that it doesn't matter whether or not they vote because the 'establishment' will ensure that a particular candidate will win regardless. It is typically those on the losing side that are discouraged from voting.

This message, I think, would be particularly re-inforced if McCain wins against Obama in November. A Republican win would probably discourage young people from participating in elections over the next few years, maybe even the next decade. It would particularly discourage them if a Republican win was coupled with further allegations of vote fraud. Indeed, it's probably best to tighten voting controls outside of the electoral cycle so that it isn't necessarily linked to one candidate's victory or the other. 

[Smid]

Possibly, but I think it would be more likely to lead to apathy.

[Smid]

Democrat policy changes? Or voting reforms?

I think the Democrats might need to move slightly to the right on some economic issues. In Australia, people receive a tax deduction for having private health insurance - valued at 1/3rd of their premium. This makes health insurance more affordable. On top of this, there is public hospitals as well, for those who can't afford private.

Ideologically, Democrats might not like that because it's not fully public and Republicans might not like it because it's government spending, but I think it's probably a sensible middle ground that might be acceptable to many Americans. Likewise our university education system...

The university education system is subsidised to a certain extent but students still have to pay a certain amount to attend. Students can pay up-front if they wish, in which case they receive a further discounted rate. If they don't pay up-front, they incur a debt to the Government, which then must be declared when they find employment. In addition to deducting taxes from their wages, the employer also deducts a certain amount for their education debt (HECS) - which is paid back at a rate proportionate to their income (I'm not sure how much, but it's a certain percentage of their income. I could pull out my pay slip and work it out, but that's too much effort). You only pay it back if you earn over a certain amount and it's indexed at CPI - rather than at a particular interest rate.

Again, it's probably too much market intervention to appeal to the Republican Party, not sure what the Democrats would think of it... It certainly would help parents paying off education expenses for their kids, or students who might otherwise need to take out a student loan. Anyway, I think it's probably still a sensible middle ground that's not too extreme to scare off voters with threats of escalating tax bills, but still making things a bit easier on some people. Don't know what you think of those ideas, but could be something you can think about.

[Smid]

You could see two situations:

1.  Obama wins and is the next Jimmy Carter, only worse.  Within 5 years of today there is Christian conservative Congress abnd President.

2.  McCain win and the evangelicals in the party are diminished.

I think that sounds about right.

[Smid]

Ummmmmmmm I hate to be an asshole but lots of your predictions seem to be pretty shaky/partisan to me. Then again mine are too, hope/bias is on all sides, just saying.

I'm not sure "partisan" would apply to my most recent answers.

I do think that if Republicans are elected that are seen as being outside of the "religious right," that will weaken the influence of the religious right.

I'd say the same about Black voters and the Democratic Party. 

No I meant with terrorism. I should have clarified, also I thought your assesment of Obama was a little partisan. I don't think it would be a great presidency but worse than Carter...

First, I don't see a terrorist attack as being based on what party is control.

Second, I'm looking at the House seat change from 1974-6 and 1980.  I think it was a high 40's shift, without redistricting and the GOP base was lower (about 144-7 seats).  In 2010, there will be redistricting, and probably an upswing in the opposition party control of the state legislatures.  If it's Obama, he'll have to overcome that.  In short, evens could make it much worse than Carter.

Now, Obama's job performance is unknowable, but I have to look at a candidate who made the "God and guns" comment and his lack of experience (Carter was more experienced as an administrator).  Unable to relate to the population and inexperienced are not promising.

A bad presidency by Obama could lead to many disillusioned Democrats switching to the GOP - particularly in the south.

[Smid]

Perhaps the decline of the Blue Dogs within the Democrats could see their exodus to the Republicans, leading to a more populist Republican party. This increase in dominance of social conservatives could see the more socially moderate Republicans shifting to the Democrats - leading to a populist Republican party facing off against a more libertarian Democratic party?

[Smid]

Have you figured out what kind of policies, issues and voting blocs that will materialize afterwards?

Well, my guess now is a more fiscally conservative government.  The "litmus test" might be, how fiscally conservative is a candidate as opposed to a socially conservative.  I would not have said that in February of 2008.

I think this very much is likely to be the result... people may even look back on Clinton as being conservative, since budgets under his presidency were in surplus.

[Smid]

Have you figured out what kind of policies, issues and voting blocs that will materialize afterwards?

Well, my guess now is a more fiscally conservative government.  The "litmus test" might be, how fiscally conservative is a candidate as opposed to a socially conservative.  I would not have said that in February of 2008.

I think there is about a 50/50 chance to see the end of racial politics.

The selection of Ryan seems to back up your earlier thoughts on fiscal conservatism becoming the most important attribute in Republican candidates.