The day after the Giants beat the Packers in the NFC Championship, Mike Francesa on a program that was Mike and the Mad Dog dismissed any talk of the Giants beating the Patriots in the Super Bowl. BUT...should they end up winning the whole thing, he said (and I'm recalling from memory) it would be one of the greatest moments in the history of New York sports. And then...you know.
The October 16th edition of Countdown with Keith Olbermann had Chris Kofinis of the Edwards campaign to talk about Obama's campaign strategy. Much was made of Obama's effort to quell any complacency voters may have when faced with the prospect of a landslide. And he's right. But one word came from Kofinis that rings in my ears (in bold in the block quote, click here and scroll to 3:30):
"I don't want to be presumptuous about it, but there's a chance that this could be a realignment election, kind of what we saw in 1980..." - Chris Kofinis
More after the jump.
I honestly don't think we're there yet. But it is the first time in this campaign season that I have heard this word, so let's remind ourselves what a realignment actually is (emphasis mine):
"Realigning election or political realignment are terms from political science and political history describing a dramatic change in the political system. Scholars frequently apply the term to American elections, and occasionally to other countries. Usually it means the coming to power of a new coalition, replacing an old dominant coalition of the other party (or, replacing a stalemate, as in the U.S. in 1896 or 1932). Realignment may center on a "critical election" or be spread among several elections. More specifically, they often refer to American national elections in which there are sharp changes in issues, party leaders, the regional and demographic bases of power of the two parties, and structure or rules of the political system (such as voter eligibility, or financing), resulting in a new political power structure and a new status quo." - Wikipedia
First, it's Wikipedia, but it does remind me a lot of what my elections professor taught me during my time as a politics major.
Second, despite this campaign going on for a year and a half and more, nothing has actually changed in American politics. No election has been conducted yet, no Presidents, Senators or Congresspeople have been replaced, no government policy has shifted because of direct influence from either of the major candidates. No change has been enacted or will be enacted before November 4th.
HOWEVER...we are beginning to see the prospect of the appearance of some symptoms of political realignment.
- A party that had been dominated by the Clintons in the 1990s, and had no true standard bearer during much of the Bush administration, saw Obama and Biden rise to prominence over the course of ten months. It then becomes debatable, despite the fresh, new aspect of Obama, whether or not Biden, Pelosi in the House and Reid and Clinton in the Senate, all represent parts of the "new" coalition that seeks control of the American political machinery, when they have all been in Washington for much longer than Obama. For the most part, the "old dominant coalition" would still be there if Obama wins the White House.
- Depending on your perspective, the regional bases of power for the Democratic Party have either not moved or have merely expanded. As Democrats consolidate power in the Northeast and West Coast, they find themselves in the same traditional battlegrounds of Ohio and Florida. On the other hand, Obama has been successful at expanding the electoral map and Democratic Senate candidates have made significant inroads in states where, four years ago, it was unheard of to be a Democrat.
- Another sharp change is the change in issues, from largely national security post-9/11 and social issues to largely economic, pocketbook issues in the wake of financial disaster. Democrats win every election that is about the economy, and should Obama and the new coalition find a way to keep those issues front and center in the political dialogue, Republicans will have a tough time convincing voters of switching back to their side of the fence.
Depending on what you think, the prospects of some or all of this happening or having happened already will vary. And an electoral landslide, predicted by some media outlets and electoral vote predictors, is still built on very soft ground that could move drastically in the next eighteen days. And it is dangerous to get complacent.
It is, however, also interesting to highlight the full range of what an Obama landslide would bring to American politics. As of October 17th, the Votemaster puts Obama's safe states (in which he polls better by 10% or more) as yielding 250 of the 270 electoral votes necessary for winning. McCain, and the next Republican after him, would need to sweep almost every state left on the map. In Congress, the Senate veers toward a filibuster-proof majority and the House continues to pad the left side of the aisle with Democrats. A coalition that strong, if maintained and tended to, could control the machinery well into the next decade and more.
Republicans in 2006 showed exactly the wrong way to maintain that coalition, but they served up many lessons in accountability and integrity that Democrats could learn from in order to truly preserve and prosper with a working, semi-permanent majority (something that implies far less hubris than talk of a truly permanent majority).
And realignment is far from a certainty in this election. Bracing for such a possibility, on the other hand, is not out of the question. I certainly never entertained the notion that the Giants would definitely lose. Anything can happen, especially if we all work hard and do all the things we need to do for this campaign from now until Election Day.