'04 Voting: Major Shift to The Right, or Just Tilt?

washingtonpost.com ^ | Sunday, November 28, 2004 | John F. Harris

[crushelits]

'04 Voting: Realignment -- Or a Tilt?

Political Parties Look for Answers

By any measure, President Bush and his fellow Republicans had
a good night on Nov. 2. The question now is whether the election
results set the GOP up for a good decade or more.

As some partisan operatives and political scientists see it, Bush's reelection victory and simultaneous Republican gains in the House and Senate suggest that an era of divided government and approximate parity between the major parties is giving way to an era of GOP dominance. By this light, the Republican advantage on the most important issues of the day -- the fight against terrorism, most of all -- and the party's uncontested control of the federal government leave it in a position to win long-term loyalty among key voter blocs and craft an enduring majority.

If so, 2004 would qualify as what academics call a "realignment election."

Among a core of political analysts, nearly every presidential victory is scrutinized for evidence of an incipient realignment: a shift in voter allegiances from one party to the other in ways that can shape politics far into the future. Most predictions of realignments over the years have proved premature, and there are plenty of skeptics this time. These people argue that Bush's relatively narrow victory and the Republican victories in Congress should be taken at face value -- a close election in a time of war that broke in favor of the incumbent party -- and nothing more.

[Angry Republican]

We're witnessing an era of Republican dominance. The Democratic philosophy is dying. Perhaps it will return in later years, assuming the Democrats tweak their stances.

[Terpfen]

Don't you love how they view the '04 election in a vacuum? Okay, so I guess Republican gains since 1980 are all irrelevant, especially 1994 and 2002... oh, wait, this is a liberal newspaper: history began today! My mistake.

[RWR8189]

"I'm not seeing that enduring majority," said Lawrence R. Jacobs, a political scientist at the University of Minnesota's Hubert H. Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs. "The Republicans have won a series of close elections, but independents are not with them. I just don't see how you can have a realignment if you have swing voters turning against you."

That's because Independents are becoming Republicans.

[mozarky2]

A Los Angeles Times analysis found Bush won 97 of the 100 fastest-growing counties.

That's all you need to know, in a nutshell...this says it all!

[Once-Ler]

From 2000 to 2004 I don't think it has been a major shift. It has been slow steady progress but added to previous sucesses from 1992 to 2004 has been a major shift.

[keithtoo]

51 to 48 is still only 51 to 48, we still have to solidify and grow our base. The New Media - and the implosion of the Old Media will help us do this.

[Just Lori]

We're witnessing an era of Republican dominance. The Democratic philosophy is dying. Perhaps it will return in later years, assuming the Democrats tweak their stances.


The pendulum has always swung back and forth.........for thousands of years. It just seems that when it swings too far one way or the other, it corrects itself. Maybe not always, but most of the time, anyway. People are smarter than they think they are. (Well, most of the time, anyway)

[Prost1]

"a close election...and nothing more."

Seems I heard that when the dems lost the house. Then I heard it when they lost the senate. I heard it again when they lost the presidency. Then they stole a senate seat and said, see, 50/50...
Now, with gains in the off-year, they say the same. But with little to steal, they can only gain thru media persuasion, "it's 50/50" when it isn't!

When the Reps had 50/50 senate, they agreed to split the committees evenly with the dems, though the VP gave them the tie-breaker. When 1 senator became independent, the dems put a majority on all committees to spite the reps, and called Daschle "majority leader" with all priviledges.

Time to play their game. Give them small representation on all committees. And Co-chair of Intelligence et.al. should be assistant since we saw how Rockefeller and Dodd and company became so partisan. No equality until new blood is put forth. (There are only a few!)

[Restorer]

The Democratic philosophy is dead because it has come up with nothing new in decades. They are essentially living in 1972. The world has changed since then, but they have not.

I assume the Democratic party will reinvigorate itself and come up with innovative approaches to modern problems. As a matter of fact, I hope they do. One of the strengths of the two-party system is its competitiveness.

In the long run, one of the two parties being permanently non-competitive is not good for the country, or even for the other party.

[Paleo Conservative]

If so, 2004 would qualify as what academics call a "realignment election."

Well the timing is right. Here's a list of major realignments.

1788 - First Congressional elections (First President George Washington takes office 1789)

1860 - First Republican President elected (secession of 11 southern states, Civil War, Abolition of slavery)

1932 - Franklin D. Roosevelt Elected (New Deal begins modern welfare state in US, Democrats dominate Congress and state legislatures for most of the next 62 years).

2004 - George W. Bush reelected for a second term as President (Reelected President's party makes gains in both the House and Senate while reeleciting a President for the first time since 1936).

Notice Each of these realignments comes 72 years after the previous realignment (about a long lifetime).

[Angry Republican]

As much as I hate the Dems, I don't want to see them gone for the reason you posted.

The Dems need to stop blaming Bush and go back to the drawing board. Create a new strategy that shows they are in touch with today's world.

[bayourod]

"We're witnessing an era of Republican dominance. The Democratic philosophy is dying."

Don't think so. People voted for Bush, not the Republican Party.

Can you think of anyone else who could have beaten the Old Media/Hollywood/Soros coalition?

Nor could Bush have won if not for near perfect execution of a well planned campaign.

The key to the future is going to be the Hispanic vote. They will vote Republican for the same reasons you and I vote Republican unless they are turned off by the anti-Mexican gaggle of Republican Congressmen trying to parley xenophobia into cash contributions and a Senate seat.

[Go Gordon]

A Los Angeles Times analysis found Bush won 97 of the 100 fastest-growing counties. That's all you need to know, in a nutshell...this says it all!

Thats because the decrepid old inner city folks continue to vote with the Democratic party. Its amazing. I live in NJ. If I lived in Camden, Trenton, Newark or other horrible cities, it wouldn't take long to discover the problem. I'd look at who has run the cities for decades.

It reminds me of an old analogy. If you mix whiskey with Pepsi and drink alot, you'll get drunk. If you mix whiskey with orange juice and drink alot, you'll get drunk. If you mix whiskey with water and drink alot, you'll get drunk. Does that mean that drinking alot of water will get you drunk? Of course not, its the whiskey. The Democrats have run our cities into the ground with their policies and their desire to keep everyone on the plantation, if thats what it takes to secure votes. Yet, the citizens that continue to live in the inner city hellholes they call home continue to support the RATs due to the MSM lies and deception of which party really is the party of racists.

Although Bush got a 22% increase in the black vote, going from 9% to 11% is really a sad testiment.

[LexBaird]

A Los Angeles Times analysis found Bush won 97 of the 100 fastest-growing counties.

Careful there. "Fastest growing" is one of the signs of a poorly used statistic. If group "A" went from a population of 10 to 20, while population in group "B" went from 100 to 125, then "A" could be said to have grown "faster" by doubling, while "B" has more actual increase in numbers.

Since the "Blues" are concentrated in highly populated areas, it is likely that the "Red" areas would show "faster growth".

[Once-Ler]

But if the 2004 election was essentially a coin toss that happened to go Bush's way, the opposition party can simply try a little harder and hope for better luck next time.

Yes! Hey rats!!! Try this new stratagy of obstruction. It was just a coin toss in 2004, and 2002, and 2000, and every election since 1994 where Republican held majorities in the House and Senate. In fact the rats should sharpen their attacks. Kerry was sometime for the War in Iraq even though it is clear his base was not. That's no way to treat your voters. Calling Republicans Nazi and vandalizing our HQs just doesn't catch the attention of the savy and hip liberal base. After all why join the DNC when you can join Al Quada and have a real voice represent you.

[Angry Republican]

I was talking about the Majority in the House & Senate as well, not just Bush.

[Paleo Conservative]

Although Bush got a 22% increase in the black vote, going from 9% to 11% is really a sad testiment.

Remember, turnout was considerably higher in 2004 than in 2000. W actually doubled the number of black votes he received this year.

[Jibaholic]

In the late 1950s the Republicans only had about 34 seats in the senate, and while the progress has been cyclical, the Republicans have been steadily winning back senate seats for the last 50 years at the rate of about 1 every 2 years.

You can debate whether 2004 was a realignment election, but you cannot debate the fact that America has been steadily retreating from liberal politics for nearly 50 years.

[Prophet in the wilderness]

Bushes narrow victory ? Bush got more of the % of the vote than Clinton did, and ? Bush got the most POPULAR VOTE count than any president in history of the USA .
Can anyone ? or does anyone have any STATS, of the passed elections, were the candidates had a more narrow margin of votes in the electoral collage, than BUSH and KERRY ?