On The Realignment Question
There’s a debate afoot on the internet on the subject of whether the Democrats’ sweeps in 2006 and 2008 amount to a “realignment” in American politics. You can see John Judis argue the affirmative case, or else Scott Winship or Larry Bartels for the negative.
Overall, I find it a bit difficult to take sides in this debate because I find David Mayhew’s argument in Electoral Realignments: A Critique of an American Genre to be extremely persuasive. The crux of the argument is that 2008 can’t be a “realignment” election because there’s really no such thing. Not, of course, that the elections of 1932 and 1820 and the rest didn’t happen, or that they weren’t significant in their way. But that it’s not possible to define the “realignment” property in any kind of rigorous way and show that it’s shared by the various elections at hand.
Indeed, I think that if you look at the evidence Judis presents, it’s clear that the term “realignment” obscures more than it reveals in this context. Winship and Bartels argue, persuasively, that 2008 did not resemble 1932. And Judis agrees that 2008 did not resemble 1932. Thus, rather than get into a metaphysical debate about whether the definition of mandate can be extended so as to encompass both 2008 and 1932, it’s better to just talk about 2008.
What I take Judis to be arguing is that the main demographic trends in the country are favorable to the Democratic Party’s cause. And that seems indisputably right. John McCain got strong support from people who are likely to die in the near future. Democrats got strong support from growing demographic groups — racial and ethnic minorities. But the important thing to remember is that there are no guarantees here. If the Democrats do stuff and become hugely unpopular, the growing Hispanic share of the population won’t save them — Hispanics will swing to the GOP. But conversely, while hubris is a problem it can’t be emphasized enough that moderation and “caution” aren’t genuinely any safer. The main determinant of the party’s fate in 2010 and 2012 won’t be whether or not bills passed in 2009 were popular in 2009 it will be conditions in 2010 and 2012. If the Obama/Pelosi/Reid troika seems successful to people — defined primarily in terms of GDP and income growth, but also accounting for scandal or foreign policy debacles to perhaps play a role — then Democrats will continue to prosper. If they seem like failures, they’ll be punished. If conditions in the country had been better in 2006 and 2008, then the GOP would have done better in 2006 and 2008 and Karl Rove’s talk of a “rolling realignment” would look smarter.
45 Responses to “On The Realignment Question”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
November 7th, 2008 at 9:43 am
on realignment and governing, a laugh out loud alert: David Brooks suggests that in his dream Obama administration, he would find ensconced in important jobs Doug Holtz-Eakin, among others of similar stripes. I did laugh out loud. Would Holtz-Eakin consent to help Obama build and administer American socialism?
too funny.
November 7th, 2008 at 9:45 am
I always liked the bit of wisdom: there are two types of people in the world, those who divide people into two groups and those who don’t.
I agree with Matt that it doesn’t make sense to divide elections into two groups either.
November 7th, 2008 at 9:49 am
Demographics might be important in getting people elected, but it shouldn’t be when governing. The whole country needs help. Myself and my father, who is almost 60, white, and just got laid off, needs help. The choice come next election, doesn’t come down to who is going raise taxes or give out abortions for free, its whether a party did (or will do) things to keep the nation prosperous at both a macro and a micro level.
November 7th, 2008 at 9:49 am
Alignment/realignment is an illusion driven by the electoral college winner-take-all system. Not that I’m advocating it, but if we had direct national popular vote, nobody would talk in alignment/realignment terms.
November 7th, 2008 at 9:50 am
There is no reason to believe that Hispanics will ever swing to the GOP. A swing to the GOP means that 35% vote for the Republicans instead of 15%.
There is not reason to compare to previous elections because those elections were usually about the white vote or even more specifically the white, male vote.
AS the voters become less white and less male, there is no reason to believe that the Republicans can stay relevant in politics.
Even in the next few years more than half the seats in the House and Senate will be so safe for the Democrats that the incumbents will face no or only token representation.
November 7th, 2008 at 9:51 am
Agreed. David Brooks column today is ridiculous. Mainly, because if the center elected this president, the center is for universal health care, a new foreign policy, investment in a new green economy and tax cuts for the middle class. Things like merit pay for teachers and cutting a few gov’t programs here and there (e.g. reforming earmarks) are small potatoes.
The people made a clear and decisive decision to go for a clearly progressive agenda grounded in reason. No one is really proposing single-payer, radical tax changes or environmental policies. This whole center-right, center-left, ideological, realignment talk is worthless. Look at the damn election results??
Obama is teeing up right now to do what he said he would do. there will be no pussy footing around.
November 7th, 2008 at 10:05 am
If the demographic changes in the last few years had resulted in a larger proportion of older voters and whites, at the expense of younger voters and minorities, then the Republicans would have won the election despite their mismanagement. So, the demographic changes have been significant in helping the Democrats take control.
Of course, what they do with that power is important in the long run in terms of holding onto the support of these groups. So, I don’t see any contradiction between the two points of view.
November 7th, 2008 at 10:09 am
There is no reason to believe that Hispanics will ever swing to the GOP. A swing to the GOP means that 35% vote for the Republicans instead of 15%.
I wouldn’t recommend that anybody rely on you for planning their electoral strategy – McCain won around 30% of the Hispanic vote, compared to Bush who won around 45% just 4 years ago. While the Republicans have seriously hurt themselves with Hispanic voters over the last two years, Democrats shouldn’t start taking the Hispanic vote for granted either.
November 7th, 2008 at 10:10 am
Possibly, but I think that the Republicans have elevated the anti-immigration rhetoric to the point where many Latinos (especially newly naturalized ones) will not swing to the GOP. I have a chart showing a breakdown of the Hispanic vote comparing 2004 and 2008 on my own blog, and there were so many who went for Bush the previous time. And if you think about it, in 2004, things were already bad, and the Hispanic population didn’t entirely swing away from GWB.
November 7th, 2008 at 10:17 am
“If the Obama/Pelosi/Reid troika seems successful to people — defined primarily in terms of GDP and income growth, but also accounting for scandal or foreign policy debacles to perhaps play a role — then Democrats will continue to prosper. If they seem like failures, they’ll be punished.”
I don’t think MY understands what an electoral realignment is. A realignment is something that changes the baseline of a country’s political process/culture, creating a new status quo under which the day-to-day battles of policy and politics are conducted. Democrats didn’t control the House for two generations simply because they were “successful” and they didn’t lose the House and Senate in 1994 because of specific policy failures. Why did Dems lose so big in 94 and not 1980 or 84 when Reagan was rolling to huge victories? FDR changed the political equation in America in favor of the Democrats and Reagan shifted it back in favor of the GOP. Whether Obama’s elected heralds another realignment has yet to be seen.
Mike
November 7th, 2008 at 10:18 am
I tend to agree the notion of a “realignment” can be overstated, and it is certainly true that favorable shifts in the composition of the electorate (in part from underlying demographic shifts, but also thanks to conscious efforts from the Obama campaign to increase registration and turnout in certain groups) had much to do with Obama’s victory. Still, Obama did improve his relative numbers in several groups as well, including non-whites, college-educated whites, and young voters.
So whether you call that a “realignment” or not, it represents a fairly broad-based favorable shift in voter preference on top of the favorable shift in voter composition. And as Matt implies, down the road these two effects can reinforce each other, since Obama improved his standing in groups whose share of the electorate is likely to continue to grow in the future (noting that I mean the age cohort represented by the current young voters, and not necessarily future young voters). But for all that to pan out, Obama must indeed govern in a way that reinforces those trends.
And on that subject, I agree that those who suggest Obama needs to be “moderate” or “centrist” in some ill-defined way are somewhat missing the mark, and that what matters instead is whether his policies work well, meaning they achieve the expected benefits at a reasonable cost. In that sense, what he really needs to do is be smart and pragmatic, which is fortunate because he IS those things, and is also inclined to surround himself with others who are smart and pragmatic as well.
As a final thought, I also think if Obama does indeed govern in a smart and pragmatic way, then we may see even more of a genuine “realignment” in 2012, specifically with respect to many of the lower-income white voters in certain regions that kept McCain within shouting distance. To summarize our prior discussions on this subject, Obama has a natural potential to improve in these groups simply by not living up to the worst fears promoted by McCain/Palin and the right wing media. In other words, he can improve his standing in this group just by not redistributing wealth en masse from middle-class white folks to poor black folks and then handing the keys to the White House to Bin Laden.
But even more, if his plans actually work to the benefit of these people–as well they might–then I suspect that many of these people could in fact “realign” to the Democrats by 2012 in a way that would lead to an electoral outcome similar to 1932. But again that is very much contingent on Obama’s policies working well, so we shall see.
November 7th, 2008 at 10:22 am
Rich @4 is right. Forget the electoral votes. In 2004, 51% voted to stay the course. In 2008, after a distastrous 4 years (Iraq, Katrina, economy etc.), a whopping 3% of the population changed their minds. I’m not convinced at all about a realignment.
November 7th, 2008 at 10:28 am
Pete (12) says it best. If almost 48% of people still voted Republican after what we’ve seen, talk seems cheap.
OTOH, when people are asked to articulate their position, without party politics intervening, the “center” seems to have shifted. If the Dems can find a way to express this, and make some gains among the harder nuts to crack (that’s movement Evangelicals, Mormons, Appalachia, Old South types), we’d be onto something.
Five or six years ago, demographics seemed to play Rove’s way (”… and they have more kids!”). Suddenly, demographics seem to play Dem’s way (”Asians are the noo Jooz!” or “Hispanics are in play!”). Gotta grab this one by the throat before it’s gone.
November 7th, 2008 at 10:34 am
bush did not get 45% of the vote. The high water mark for Republicans is less than 40%. that is why I said that when the Hispanics swing to the GOP, the GOP still gets less than 40%. http://www.thedemocraticstrategist.org/donkeyrising/2004/11/did_bush_really_get_44_percent.html
November 7th, 2008 at 10:45 am
Pete and the spanish teacher,
But the thing is that is not quite right, because there were shifts in both directions depending on where you looked. Specifically, a limited demographic/geographic slice of the electorate voted in greater numbers for McCain than for Bush, and that is part of why the topline shift from Bush to Obama was not as dramatic as one might have expected. But on the other hand, this also means that once you look outside of that particular demographic/geographic slice, the shift from Bush to Obama was more dramatic than the topline numbers would suggest. And one of the many points Matt and others are making is that the slice that went more for McCain than Bush is shrinking in comparison to the remainder where the shift from Bush to Obama was larger.
November 7th, 2008 at 10:47 am
Yglesias – please stop using “metaphysical” and “meta”. I’ve read these words in print perhaps 20 times in my life before I started reading your blog. You use one or both of these words 20 times a week.
November 7th, 2008 at 10:51 am
adam,
Matt studied Philosophy. Trust me, you are lucky it isn’t 20 times a day.
November 7th, 2008 at 12:31 pm
There was no “realignment.” That’s just more of the usual wishful thinking by credulous liberals. An array of one-time political and demographic forces happened to come together in the same election and produce a modest overall shift towards the Democrats. Andrew Gelman has a good overview here
DTM,
And one of the many points Matt and others are making is that the slice that went more for McCain than Bush is shrinking in comparison to the remainder where the shift from Bush to Obama was larger.
And one of the many points you are ignoring is that there are many kinds of demographic change affecting voting patterns. All else being equal, on the basis of historical experience, the growing ethnic/racial minority share of the population bodes well for Democrats. But all else is not equal. The population is also getting older and richer. On the basis of historical experience, that bodes well for Republicans. And the parties themselves will change in response to shifts in the composition and views of the population. It’s complicated.
November 7th, 2008 at 12:45 pm
“Rich @4 is right. Forget the electoral votes. In 2004, 51% voted to stay the course. In 2008, after a distastrous 4 years (Iraq, Katrina, economy etc.), a whopping 3% of the population changed their minds. I’m not convinced at all about a realignment.”
Hoover still won 39.7% of the vote in 1932. (He also partially messed up the response to the Mississippi Flood of 1927, besides his disastrous policies concerning the economy). Of course, Hoover himself was the incumbent, not simply another member of his party. It’s like Bush winning 40% in 2008. Wilkie won 44.8% in 1940 (and the US was probably going to go to war by late 1940).
November 7th, 2008 at 12:49 pm
1820? The nearly uncontested re-election of James Monroe constitutes a realignment? I presume you meant to refer to the election of Andrew Jackson in 1828, and I do agree that that casting it as a realignment is problematic (but referring to it as a shift in political systems is more apt).
November 7th, 2008 at 1:08 pm
Mixner,
I am well aware that Republicans are consoling themselves with the idea that as the age cohorts that just voted for Obama get older and richer, they will inevitably gravitate to the Republicans. I don’t see much reason to assume that is true, however. For example, people 18-29 in 1980 voted 44 for Carter, 43 for Reagan. By 1992, roughly that same age cohort (30-44) went 41 for Clinton, 38 for Bush. And now in 2008, roughly that same age cohort (45-64) went 50 for Obama and 49 for McCain.
But that said, I very much agree about the parties changing in response to a changing electorate. I would just make that an explicit condition: for the Republican Party to become viable again, it will have to change itself such that it can appeal to the electorates of today and tomorrow.
November 7th, 2008 at 3:01 pm
I am well aware that Republicans are consoling themselves with the idea that as the age cohorts that just voted for Obama get older and richer, they will inevitably gravitate to the Republicans.
By which you mean of course that you are guessing that Republicans are…etc. Whether or not Republicans are consoling themsleves in that way, the trend is real.
But that said, I very much agree about the parties changing in response to a changing electorate. I would just make that an explicit condition: for the Republican Party to become viable again, it will have to change itself such that it can appeal to the electorates of today and tomorrow.
More wishful thinking. Given the small margin of the Democratic victory in this election, there is no reason to believe it represents any significant and permanent shift in party affiliation or ideology among the American electorate. Clinton beat Bush by about the same margin in 1992, and two years later the Republicans won a huge victory in the midterms that ended 40 years of Democratic control in Congress.
November 7th, 2008 at 3:21 pm
Mixner,
First, I know what Republicans are saying to themselves in part because this is not the only blog I frequent.
Second, you can claim “the trend is real” all you wish, but I just showed you numbers tracking a specific age cohort through comparable elections, and there was no such trend to be found.
Third, combined with the 2006 election, the Republican Party just went through a worse total electoral outcome than the Democrats ever went through since 1980. But I am fine with anti-empirical Republicans spinning the numbers and telling themselves everything is fine and nothing needs to be changed–you’ll either learn better, or be replaced by a new conservative party.
November 7th, 2008 at 3:56 pm
First, I know what Republicans are saying to themselves in part because this is not the only blog I frequent.
Brilliant. Of the tens of millions of Republicans in the nation, how many have you seen “consoling” themselves in the way you claimed? Give us some links.
Second, you can claim “the trend is real” all you wish, but I just showed you numbers tracking a specific age cohort through comparable elections, and there was no such trend to be found.
The numbers you listed, which you appear to have made up out of thin air, are far too limited to provide any meaningful indicator of the relationship between age and voting behavior. They don’t even track the same cohort, but rather three different and partially overlapping cohorts representing a very small range of the age distribution of American voters and merely three elections.
The positive correlation between youth and propensity to support Democratic candidates is well-documented. Here’s Wikipedia’s summary:
November 7th, 2008 at 3:59 pm
Matt,
I think you’re quite right that realignment is incoherent. My question is how can you think realignment (correctly) to be incoherent while thinking that describing America as ‘center-right’ or ‘center-left’ is coherent? It seems that one could define realignment as the delta of the ‘center-right’ vs. ‘center-left’-ness of voters between two election cycles. I take these terms to be equally incoherent to realignment, that is to say that there is no such scenario in which they have a truth value of either true or false. You seem to disagree insofar as you think the claim that America is ‘center-right’ can be falsified by electoral results.
November 7th, 2008 at 4:06 pm
Third, combined with the 2006 election, the Republican Party just went through a worse total electoral outcome than the Democrats ever went through since 1980.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. Although, since you provide no evidence for your claim, or even offer a definition of “total electoral outcome,” it’s more just incoherent than false.
November 7th, 2008 at 6:17 pm
Leaving aside for a moment the larger question of realignment, there is something called a “cohort” effect, which is to say that once you are politically socialized into a given party (generally by the time that you are 25 and in “normal” times this happens primarily through your family) you tend to remain a member of that party for your entire life. Partisanship is very sticky.
But Obama is not the person who has driven so many young people to be Democrats, George W. Bush is. These folks were socialized by his presidency to think (whether or not this is true) that Republicans are incompetent (Katrina), unconcerned about the environment (Kyoto), fiscally irresponsible (the debt), and, let’s say, incautious on the global stage (Iraq). The vast majority of them will continue to believe this and that will remain Democrats.
Barring a major realignment, this cohort will remain disproportionally Democratic.
Obama’s victory was more a result of this shift than the cause of it.
November 7th, 2008 at 6:34 pm
These folks were socialized by his presidency to think (whether or not this is true) that Republicans are incompetent (Katrina), unconcerned about the environment (Kyoto), fiscally irresponsible (the debt), and, let’s say, incautious on the global stage (Iraq). The vast majority of them will continue to believe this and that will remain Democrats.
Considering that the Democratic-controlled Congress has an even lower job approval rating than the President, not terribly likely.
November 7th, 2008 at 7:26 pm
By the way, if anyone was wondering, 1990 and 1992 were not in fact comparably bad for the Republicans to 2006 and 2008. In 1990 the Republicans lost one seat in the Senate and seven seats in the House, as compared with losing six seats in the Senate and thirty seats in the House in 2006. In 1992, as Clinton was winning the Presidency, the Republicans stayed even in the Senate and actually gained nine seats in the House, as compared to a current count of losing six or more Senate seats and twenty-one or more in the House in 2008.
November 7th, 2008 at 8:31 pm
1990 and 1992 were not in fact comparably bad for the Republicans to 2006 and 2008.
I didn’t notice anyone say they were. You said: “combined with the 2006 election, the Republican Party just went through a worse total electoral outcome than the Democrats ever went through since 1980.” You still haven’t explained clearly what that is supposed to mean. How are you measuring “total electoral outcome?”
In the 2006 and 2008 House elections combined, the Reps lost 51 House seats. In the 1992 and 1994 House elections combined, the Dems lost 63 seats.
November 8th, 2008 at 7:30 am
Re: there is something called a “cohort” effect, which is to say that once you are politically socialized into a given party (generally by the time that you are 25 and in “normal” times this happens primarily through your family) you tend to remain a member of that party for your entire life.
I am skeptical about this, as I suspect that the socialization may not involve familty influence all that much and relies more on what one experiences as one enters early adulthood.
My father was a Republican (of the Eisenhower sort) So was my step-mother (with a libertarianish flair). In 1988, my first presidential election, I voted GHW Bush. Four years later (I was 25) my father had died, my stepmother was voting Perot and I voted for Clinton. As time has passed I have become an increasingly Democratic voter. In fact my step-mother, despite solid Republican roots, has also, a process I have helped along (e.g., got her a Mother Jones suscription several years ago for Xmas).
So parties cannot simply rely on kids to inherit their parents’ affiliations, and a party can lose a substantial number of its legacy voters if it moves too far from their comfort zone ideologically or if it really makes a bad snafu of things when it’s in power. The GOP has done both.
January 15th, 2009 at 1:46 am
laptop battery
laptop batteries
February 8th, 2009 at 9:55 pm
laptop battery
March 11th, 2009 at 4:40 am
Great site. Good info
March 12th, 2009 at 11:29 pm
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
March 14th, 2009 at 5:21 am
Great site. Good info
xanax
March 22nd, 2009 at 10:28 am
buy viagra online
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
April 3rd, 2009 at 4:13 am
I bookmarked this site. Thank you for good job!
cheap brand pfizer viagra