Was Nov. 2 Realignment -- Or a Tilt?

Washington Post ^ | 11/28/04 | John F. Harris

[Pikamax]

Was Nov. 2 Realignment -- Or a Tilt? Political Parties Look for Answers By John F. Harris Washington Post Staff Writer Sunday, November 28, 2004; Page A01

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.

[what's up]

If Republicans have indeed seized the upper hand in national politics in a fundamental way, the implication for Democrats is that radical changes in their electoral strategies, and even issue positions, are needed to become competitive again. 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.

Oh, please let them believe the latter. That will ensure a huger win for Republicans in '06 and '08.

[Cicero]

Lots of wishful thinking in the Think Tanks.

This is a realignment, IF the Republicans can come up with someone like Bush in 2008 and not go back to the RNC's customary habit of foisting RINOs on us. I'm not sure whether the powers that be really understood what GWB represented when they chose him to be the candidate in 2000. They may have thought he would play business as usual like his father.

As for the reason why the election was so close:it was because kerry had 95% of the media on his side pulling out all the propaganda stops. It was worth a billion dollars in free advertising.

[AZLiberty]

As for the reason why the election was so close:it was because kerry had 95% of the media on his side pulling out all the propaganda stops.

Imagine what the result would have been if the Corrupt Old Media (the COMmies) had supported the War and the President.

[frithguild]

"If the Democrats don't do well" in places and with groups "that are growing faster than others," said Gersh, "they are going to be in trouble."

I like that.

[wagglebee]

November 2nd was a mandate for freedom, Bush and America. The Washington Post hates all three, so they're trying to minimize it.

[ultima ratio]

The realignment has been going on for a full decade--ever since the Republicans took over the House. The dems need to look at the governorships and the takeovers of state legislative bodies as well, all of which were once safely in Democratic hands across the country. The opposite is true today. Right now Republicans control the Presidency, the House and Senate, most of the governorships, and most of the state bodies. An unwillingness to confront this reality by re-assessing its principles will only cause more erosion of power for the Democratic Party. As this article suggests, there is a lot of reluctance to admit the truth and to take the steps to the right that are necessary to win elections. The DNC still hopes that its propaganda machine--fueled by the mainstream media, academia, Hollywood and pop culture in general--can save the day. It can't.

[Astronaut]

Absolutely true. The liberal media pulled out all the stops for Kerry. For 18 months, they bashed President Bush constantly. They mostly dropped any former pretense of fairness, and let their bias show. They still couldn't deliver the White House for Kerry. I'm sure there is a lot of fear in NY and DC right now as the liberal media realizes that they grow weaker and more impotent by the day.

[Yaco]

The ralignment is proceeding not because of, but in spite of, the GOP and those that it foists onto the voting public. Read Ann Coulter's latest on the meek ones. Should the Republican Party not wake up in the next four years and continues to act like they lost this election, the easily plucked plums are already hanging from the tree, namely a truley conservative approach to immigration reform, not the "I'm afraid to make anyone mad, or step on some lobby group toes" mantra currently being adopted by this milqutoast bunch of RINO's. This country is electing (or trying to) leaders who will stand up to the judicial tyranny, overwelming leftist approach to war and breakdown of the family values that are fed through the media as a staple. Let the GOP continue to shy away from one battle after another and it will become obvious to the left that all you have to do is put on a good front of standing for these things and you will have a fresh crop of leftist Dem's elected into office to continue their agenda. Hillary is already waking up to the borders issue and with the MNM's help could pull the rug right out from under GW.

[x]

Tilt or realignment? How do you separate the two? One factor is the size of the margin. 51% to 48% isn't enough to qualify as a major realignment. More likely the last election was a tweaking of the Reagan realignment of the 1980s. Republicans have strength in the South, and the Mountains and Plains of the West, Democrats on the two coasts and in parts of the Great Lakes and Upper Mississippi (this didn't really show up until after Reagan was gone, because he won so decisively, but it's still part of the Reagan era). Bush lost some traditional Republican support in the Northeast and West Coast (as has happened over the course of thirty years) and picked up support in some traditionally Democrat areas, such as the Appalachians (which can be seen as a continuation of the Democrats loss of the South).

Will 2008 follow the same pattern? Well, the Democrats won't be so stupid as to nominate a wealthy liberal Northeastern Yalie again, will they? [Maybe. Hillary and Howard Dean are the party's best known candidates, and the Democrats have been caught in the grip of destructive passions before.] And it's likely that another Republican won't get quite as strong an evangelical/red state/war bump as President Bush did. Could Cheney? Or Giuliani? Or McCain? Or a governor just coming on the scene now? The likelihood is that this election is only another link in the chain, but the test will be what the President does with his victory.