(Disclaimer: I am not counting my chickens before they are even a glint in mama hen's eye)
For starters, I am a Political Science major at the University of Oregon, and this past year I learned a bit about the theory known to political scientists as electoral realignment. My professor of Public Policy as well as The US Presidency, Dan Tichenor (a really freaking smart guy), took the time to explore and explain the concept in detail for a week in both classes. Ever since he did so, the idea has been stuck in my head. It's been gnawing away at me as I read the news every day. When is the next electoral realignment? Who will be the leader that sets the events into motion? What will this supposed realignment look like? And, perhaps most importantly, where exactly will this realignment take us?
But perhaps I am moving too quickly, and I should assume that very few people truly understand what an electoral realignment is (though the wording kinda gives it away). This theory was crafted in 1955, by the political scientist V. O. Key. The idea, basically, is that every so often an election occurs that dramatically and thoroughly alters the landscape of American politics. This 'every so often' is different for many different political scientists, for instance the professor emeritus of political science at the University of Texas at Austin, Walter Dean Burnham, asserts that these elections occur every 30-36 years. Which, again depending on who you ask, suggests that we are either overdue or right on time for a new electoral realignment.
There is a litmus test for political scientists to determine whether or not a certain election is, in fact, a realignment. The criteria is as follows:
Professor Tichenor's adjusted list on what constitutes an electoral realignment (I dug for hours to find these again).
1) A set of problems or issues that can not be ignored
2) Parties clearly presenting their ideas/solutions in direct contrast to other parties ideas
3) High voter turn out and enthusiasm
4) The demographics of the nation clearly shift in who they vote for (party identies change)
5) The shift endures.
According to scholarly thought, there are only five or six electoral realignments in American history. Those elections would be Thomas Jefferson in 1800, Andrew Jackson in 1828, Abraham Lincoln in 1860, William McKinley in 1896 (this one is hotly contested), and Franklin Delano Roosevelt in 1936. You may notice I left out the 1980 election of Ronald Reagan, and his Reagan Revolution. Let me explain.
In order to have completed a full realignment, you not only need to win in an electoral landslide, you need to win with a mandate. Reagan came to Washington with a Democratically controlled House. This basically rules out a realignment under the five requirements. However, some scholars feel that 1980 was indeed a realigning election, despite it being unable to fulfill the requirements. I agree with this, and I have a theory on why it's an outlier realignment. Reagan brought a new ideology into the American mainstream, "Government is the problem", and that ideology is a direct influence on Republican politics to this day. He also peeled off a core constituency, the white working class, from Democrats.
I won't get into whether or not 2008 is the right answer for electoral realignment in this era. While in 2008 President Obama fulfilled the first four absolutely, the fifth requirement, an enduring shift, did not come to pass. As we all know, unfortunately, the 2010 Midterms went Republican. It's my personal belief that 2008 was not a realigning election, but I personally think 2012 might fit the bill. Here's why.
1) A set of problems or issues that can not be ignored
I think this is even more important in 2012 than it was in 2008. While the financial crisis was wreaking havoc on America in 2008, I would argue that this time around, President Obama faces an even deeper crisis. The economy has not fully recovered, which in itself is a crisis. Yet, he also faces a crisis in Washington that has a lot to do with Republican obstruction in the Congress. It's what Jon Huntsman Jr. calls the "trust deficit". (Random tidbit: I kinda want to put money down on Jon being a speaker at the 2012 DNC.) Nobody believes in our leaders anymore. I think 2012 meets this benchmark.
2) Parties clearly presenting their ideas/solutions in direct contrast to other parties ideas
If you had asked me a few weeks ago if I though this election would meet this second benchmark, I would have said no. Mitt Romney resolutely resisted taking a position on anything, and President Obama had no real opening to start going populist and classic Democrat. However, the selection of Paul Ryan is, in fact, a game change. Mitt Romney was the worst possible standard bearer for the current crop of Republicans. Paul Ryan, on the other hand, is. Ryan represents the conservative movement well. His budget, in essence, IS the conservative movement in a nutshell. If there was ever an election that can now offer stark contrasts on the future of this country, 2012 is it. The Republicans have doubled down on the Ryan plan, which gives the President the opportunity to drive home his role as champion of the middle class.
3) High voter turn out and enthusiasm
This is probably the trickiest to determine. How much impact will Voter ID laws and Republican Secretary of State voter roll purging have on the electorate? If the courts don't overturn these purges, this election becomes a little trickier to determine as a turning point election. Yet, if they do, and Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, and other states no longer have to worry about restrictions on the right to vote, I think this becomes a little easier to answer. If there was ever a motivator for both bases to turn out, it would be Paul Ryan. For Conservatives, Ryan says things they believe in. For Liberals, well, everything Ryan stands for goes against our values. The best part is, we have an opponent who scares us AND an incumbent President who we all genuinely like for the most part. I expect this election to see huge base turnout, and probably be only a couple million short of 2008's record turnout.
4) The demographics of the nation clearly shift in who they vote for (party identies change)
This one might be easier to answer than #3. Remember that Ohio poll a few weeks back? That one that had about 20% of Republicans saying they would vote for President Obama? I think its telling. Now, I know it's only one poll, but if there was ever an election to add to the Democratic coalition for the next few decades, I would say 2012 is a good fit. The Republican nominee personifies everything Reagan Democrats despise: The guy who fired them from their jobs, and put them on unemployment lines. The politics of resentment may be decried from the far right, but for those moderate Republicans in middle America, it's a very very real mindset.
One other demographic has the potential to flip Democratic this time, and again it is thanks to Paul Ryan. The elderly is a voting bloc that has been consistently Republican for a while now. It wasn't always that way, however, as one of the main reasons FDR got elected four different times was because one of his main group of supporters was the elderly. The legacy of the Democratic party is that Democrats are strong on supporting entitlements. The Ryan budget, and his other proposals, talk about privatizing Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. Nobody wants that. There are already reports of elderly Republicans jumping ship over the Ryan pick. Obama has a real chance to reinvigorate the legacy of the Democrats. Remember NY-26 last year? That seat was Republican since the Civil War. Then it went Democrat when the Ryan budget was tied to the Republican incumbent. If I were Reince Priebus, I would be panicking right now.
5) The shift endures.
We won't be able to answer this question until well after 2012. But if the election goes the way I outlined up above, there is a very real chance for a Democratic majority for the immediate future. This gives President Obama not only a chance for pushing Democratic and Progressive ideals, but also to go down in history as one of our best Presidents.
On a theorycrafting level, it's fun to think about stuff like this. Yet in reality, it's an important exercise. An electoral realignment in 2012 would not only be good for Democrats, but it would be good for Americans. Democrats have routinely given this country prosperity while in power over the last century. They have a chance to continue this trend into the new millenium.
So tell me what you think. Is 2012 a realignment year? Was it 2008, and 2010 was just a blip? Do Republicans have a better shot than I'm giving them?