Talk:Realigning election

Untitled

"FDR's New Deal policies represented an entirely new phenomenon in American politics, which sprang out of nowhere in response to the Great Depression which began in 1929 under Herbert Hoover. "

Say WHAT? Let's re-read this...

FDR's New Deal policies (check) FDR's New Deal policies represented an entirely new phenomenon in American politics (OK), which sprang out of nowhere (WTF?) in response to the Great Depression which began in 1929 under Herbert Hoover.(DUH!)

Just "sprang out of nowhere?" HellOOOO???

I'm going to re-write that sentence so it isn't quite so painfully stupid.

"sprang out of nowhere".... christ on a bike....

Hwarwick 10.54 12/07/04

In my defense, it was late. And try not to be so critical--it alienates other users. Best, [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 12:43, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Same here - I wrote that when it was rather late and I was cranky. Sorry for coming off like such a meany. I thought I did a pretty good job of re-working the line, though. Also: thanks for the article in general - it's otherwise a very good work. best,

Hwarwick

No problem. I appreciate it. Yours, [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 20:40, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Also: If you'd be so kind:

The article reads

If the posited 36-year cycle of realigning elections were valid, the next realigning election would occur with the U.S. presidential election, 2004.

I am praying for this to be true.

However: it would be really cool if you could reference the position of the 36 year cycle. Perhaps like this:

If the 36 year cycle of realigning elections is actual, as posited by (fill in with a link or the name and citation), the next realigning election will occur with the U.S. presidential election, 2004

Mostly, I just want to know who came up with that cycle...

Also, how do you get all that UTC stuff to show up after your name???

Hwarwick

Well, the UTC stuff is done by typing four tildes, like this: ~~~~. Typing only three will sign your name, without a timestamp.

As for the 36 year cycle, I'd love to be able to help--unfortunately, most of the books I used in this are in summer storage right now (and I currently have no access to them, or to a university library), so I couldn't answer this right now. Best, [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 20:56, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The 36 year cycle was decided upon after graphing the number of years between elections that were realigning. It seems to be a fairly standard figure. At least, the cycle is defined as being 36 years long in every place I've ever seen realigning elections discussed. The source I'm currently looking at is the textbook, "American Government" by James Q. Wilson and John J. DiIulio, Jr., 9th edition. 24.14.254.14 16:09, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

2004's election

I honestly think this should be added as a possible realigning election. While it may have been close, with President Bush winning re-election by a margin of about 3 percent, he won reelection while increasing his party's lead in both the House and the Senate.

Furthermore, given the increased importance of foreign policy and fighting terrorism in this election, as well as the number of Republican voters shifting over to Democrats (typically due to fiscal issues), and vice versa (due to foreign policy, as evident by figures such as Zell Miller, Ed Koch, and Ron Silver, who were Democrats, but endorsed Bush in 2004).

There also does seem to be a bit of a shift to the right in public opinion polls.

Just a thought.--RNJBOND 10:13, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

I find your analysis extremely dubious. Increasing congressional margins is not traditionally a criteria for a realigning election. The emergence of new defining issues is, but the major feature is substantial shifts in geographic and demographic voting patterns, which simply didn't happen. However, none of that really matters, because what you're suggesting is original research and hence doesn't belong here. If someone notable, preferably a political scientist, suggests 2004 as a realignment, we can include that speculation. Until then, Wikipedia's not the place for this. RadicalSubversiv E 11:40, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

2004 may well be for the Republicans what 1964 was to the Democrats; the last shining victory for a party that had dominated the last couple decades, before the great plunge in the next election. But that remains to be seen; the current Republican party is far from a spent force, and the next election is far from being the slam dunk many people assume it will be.

If we are entering a period of realignment in favor of the Democrats, then 2006, not 2004, will have been the marker that began it. But that's not to be taken for granted. For 2006 to have been a realigning election, a few things have to happen;

1) Barack Obama winning the upcoming election.

2) The Democrats stabilizing the economy.

3) The Democrats finally making meaningful changes in the system, of the sort Clinton wasn't able to because of his congress; finally introducing universal health care is the obvious one.

And finally, the Democratic majority and the changes they introduce need to stick around for longer than just a couple election cycles. 2006 was largely a backlash against the corruption and incompetence of the Bush administration, and 2008, should Obama win, will be due to fear over the economic crisis. The question is, can the Democrats turn this into a true shift of public confidence in their favor, or will that go away as soon as the Bush memories have faded and the economy's settled down a little?

In 1994, the Republicans also thought they'd managed a long-term realignment. Turns out they were wrong; their majority in Congress went away in twelve short years, their president turned into a lame duck, and above all, they have done nothing to change the system. (Roe v. Wade is still the law of the land; the gay rights and women's rights movements have gained rather than lost ground in the battle for public opinion; the legacy of the New Deal stands unharmed; and the tax cuts for the rich will go away as soon as the next Democratic president comes in, like they always do). The "realignment" of 2006 could turn out the same way; a temporary fluke which came from voter discontent but ultimately accomplished nothing. I hope that's not the case, but only history will tell. 147.9.177.22 (talk) 03:37, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

very perceptive on the part of 147.9.177.22 -- can we call you Catch22 for short? Rjensen (talk) 05:11, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Why thank you, sir. Catch22 is fine, and I stand by what I said. Step 1 is complete, okay. Now let's wait for the more difficult step 2 and the far more difficult step 3. After that, I'll happily call it a realignment. 147.9.232.179 (talk) 19:58, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I think this page should be revamped

My objections to the article in its present form:

1. It's not NPOV. For example, it specifically states that a realignment occured under Reagan, which is not at all objective fact. It is certainly a fair theory, but should not be stated as it is.

2. It does not discuss the cyclical theory except in passing. Since in common usage, American realignments are understood to occur once in a generation, or every 36-years, that should be noted. They are also thought to favor one party over another.

3. It does not discuss even the most obvious criticisms of the theory. Changes occur in politics all the time, and it's not at all clear that elections can be sorted usefully into a series of multi-decade spans.

4. The obvious questions are not addressed: "What are the unmistakable characteristics of a realignment? How can we tell when we are in the middle of one? And how do we avoid mistaking an attractive but misleading detour for the genuine historical crossroads we are looking for?"

5. a. If new policies define a realignment, then it's not at all clear that 1896 is a realigning election. The elections of 1876 and 1912 brought about far more policy innovation on the part of the federal government: the end of Reconstruction in the first instance, and the enactment of Wilson's progressive economic agenda in the second.

b. If a realigning election is marked by a drastic reshuffling of votes, 1896 is also a flop. The Republican vote went up, but not dramatically. The Democratic vote hardly changed at all. And taking into account the nation as a whole, there was no significant change in partisan loyalties as compared to many other elections. (Consider 1876 and 1920)

c. If a realigning election is a change in parties, then 1816, not 1800, should be cited as a realigning election. The Federalists came within one state of winning in 1812. It was the war that pushed them to borderline treason, ultimately leading to their demise.

-- WikiAce 23:01, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

1993 Canadian

Is the 1993 Canadian election a "realigning" one? I mean, new parties were created and won votes, but really, they were the same groups that were in the PCs voting for the same reasons. Now, wouldn't 1988 be more of a realigning election, with nationalists in the PCs and Free trade Liberals switching sides?Habsfannova 05:12, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

2006's election

I think the individual who thought the 2004 election was a possible realigning election was, um, probably wrong. But thank you for playing.

The 2006 Canadian federal election ought to be removed. It was certainly not a dramatic turning point since the Conservative Party only won a minority government, a point further reinforced by their second failure to secure a majority in the 2008 election. If 2006 is to be considered part of a long-term realignment of parties, then I think it is far too early to tell whether or not this is true. Until the Conservative Party secures a majority I don't think this can be argued. And, of course, there is nothing guaranteeing a Conservative Party majority government. In short, a dramatic realigning election such as 1896 in Canada or 1980 in the United States is fairly self-evident. On the other hand, drawn-out realigning elections require far more historical hindsight and are still problematic in that a "tipping point" in a longer process is far less salient let alone obvious to those who live through it. --Doug Nesbitt (talk) 20:09, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

This page needs cleaning up

Quite apart from the fact that it's currently divided up into US elections (two sections) and the whole of the rest of the world (one section) there seem some surprising omissions. For example, I'm British, and would most definitely include the 1997 UK election that brought Tony Blair to power. Is there a good reason that's been left out? 86.132.143.43 00:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I am from the US, but I think this article is a mess and parts of it are wrong or very subjective. It needs citations (not sources, citations) and it needs more intl perspectives. I made some changes to tighten up but more clean-up might be in order. Journalist1983 15:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

The GOP started electing Senators South in 1960s, with John Tower of Texas a famous case. The behavior of actual voters is a critical element in realignment and cannot be deleted. Rjensen 19:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

First off, I have spent a good deal of time in Texas, and Texas is perhaps nominally a southern state. Don't try to tell Ft. Worth they're in the South. A much better example would probably be Strom Thurmond, SC, who changed parties in the 60s. However, these are anomolies. I guess you could stretch and try to say U.S. Senate realignment began in the 60s, but it didn't grab hold in the deep south until the 80s and even 90s. For example, Alabama didn't budge toward a Republican Senator until 1981, when Reagan was swept in. And it wasn't until the mid 90s when Shelby changed parties. Re actual voters -- to me, this is a cause/effect issue; the voters themselves change because of other dynamics, and my view is any discussion of the voters should meld into the article and not be a separate section.

Finally, if you disgree, rather than RV everything, how about looking critically at all the changes. Pls. don't just revert everything because you disagree with portions. Journalist1983 00:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

yes, and please don't blank whole sections that are proper and on target. To say that the GOP STARTED to take senate seats in the 1960s is accurate, of course. (1950s and 1970s would be untrue). Rjensen 04:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

This is a mess. Journalist1983 08:24, 7 September 207 (UTC)

Agreed. I am not good at actually editing articles, but I would suggest that someone reword the article to remove most of these bulleted lists. I can see where they could be helpful, but it seems like they've gone a little overboard here. 24.174.0.229 00:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I would argue that the 1932 General Election in Ireland was a realigning election, in that since then, the Fianna Fáil party has been the largest political party, and has governed for 58 years. mango2002 05:40 , 10 September 2008 (UTC)

US 2008 Election and 2006 Combined = Realignment if all promises are held?

Senate and House have lost a lot of GOP seats, at least according to official poles. Barrack Obama got elected by a landslide, being the first African American to set foot in a presidential office, which is a major move towards civil rights. Nancy Pelosi was first female speaker of the house in 2006, yet another example of civil rights. The economy has basically collapsed with a huge stock market crash as people have been ensuing chaos on Wall Street and stocks falling to record lows in over 5 years. It now just remains to be seen if these elections will change history and undo all the damage from 2000-2008 in what may be called the worst presidential term ever in US History, as ratings for G.W. Bush plummet to 20%. Turnouts in 2008 have been at record high levels, unlike anything ever seen in history, and many electoral states gone from Red to Blue since both 2000 and 2004. What we are witnessing is a huge change in the US government, enough to break down the barriers of race, sex, and religion that have been long fought over in history. What astonishes me the most is that Barrack Obama is "trying" to break down all of Washington and make it so that there are no more empty promises or lies (You can argue against this if you wish), and I really hope that he will keep his promises to be honest, as honesty is something I have yet to see in any president in my lifetime, being 28 years of age. If he pulls through and does everything he says and follows through on all his promises, then I think it is fair to say we have a re-alignment. The thing is, we all have to do our part to help and unite ourselves under the nation, because we are ultimately in charge of our nation, not one person. As JFK said before my time, "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country." and Obama says, "Yes We Can." It's this ideology that remains yet to be seen, and only time will tell if politics have evolved in the next few years. (63.200.199.41 (talk) 21:23, 5 November 2008 (UTC))

It is not the place for liberal propaganda. It is a place for discussions about the page itself.Eros of Fire (talk) 22:01, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

What about 1992?

Beginning with 1992, several states broke from their former Republican leanings and became generally Democratic states. Most of them, including large states like California, Michigan, Illinois, and Pennsylvania have unbroken streaks of giving their electoral votes to the Democratic ticket. This also includes Vermont, which had famously been a Republican state that had only gone Democratic once before. Two others (New Mexico and New Hampshire) have gone Democratic in four out of five elections. TheUnknown285 (talk) 00:21, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

This is indeed the huge realignment == much more than 2008. Indeed, eighteen states that Bill Clinton won in 1992 have yet to vote for any Republican nominee for President since 1992, inclusively, often despite being reliable GOP wins before then. It is arguable that Bill Clinton had a political ideology very similar to Jimmy Carter, who had lost most of those states that now seem reliably Democratic even in 1976. All Presidential elections from 1988 to 2008 are variants on the 1992 election. Clinton won all of them twice, Gore won them all, Kerry won them all, and Obama won them all by margins greater than 10%.

It is possible to list the states and districts by electoral behavior since 1992:

1. CA CT DE DC HI IL ME MD MA MI NJ NY OR PA RI VT WA WI ... 5 for 5 D, the so-called Blue Firewall

2. IA NH NM ... 4 for 5 D, all going once for George W. Bush

3. FL OH... 2 or 3 for 5 D, large states that could have decided the election the other way in which GOP manipulation of electoral results is often accused of deciding the 2000 or 2004 elections.

4. CO NV close in 2000 and 2004, but not close enough for anyone to suspect anything fishy -- and not as big prizes

5. AZ GA MO MT Clinton won once or twice, but reasonably close in 2008 or a Republican win largely due to the Favorite Son effect

6. IN NC VA NE-02 voted only for Obama as a Democrat and reliably Republican since at least 1976

7. AR KY LA TN WV Clinton won twice, and have steadily drifted Republican; Obama lost all of those states by margins in excess of 10%.

8. All else -- AL AS ID KS MS NE (except for NE-02) ND OK SC SD TX UT WY -- reliably R in all elections since at least 1980.

Groups 2, 3, and 4 -- and possibly 5 -- are likely battleground states in any elections after 2008 except in landslides. Group 6 is surprise Obama wins in 2008. Except for Virginia, which has been drifting D in national elections, the other three in Group 6 could have easily gone the other way. If IN or NC is an Obama win in 2012 in something other than an electoral blowout, then Group 6 suggests a realignment. Otherwise they look like flukes.

Group 7 now looks like states that a Democrat can win only as a perceived moderate or conservative from the South (Carter, Clinton). Gore, Kerry, and Obama were apparently the wrong sorts of Democrat to win any of those states.

One may see a long-term trend. It is worth noting that Barack Obama won only one state that Dwight Eisenhower did not win (North Carolina), and that one barely. It could be that the Democratic Party used to be strongest in the South and weaker in the North before the 1960s, and the opposite was true in 2008. Pbrower2a (talk) 04:50, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

2008

I think it can be safely said now that this was not a realigning election. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.173.229.180 (talk) 08:07, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

2006 as well - I don't think we can call it any kind of a realignment when the Democratic gains were wiped out (and then some) only four years later. 98.209.116.7 (talk) 05:07, 2 July 2011 (UTC)