Talk:Realigning election

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"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)

Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)


[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)