Now that Trump has pretty much apparently wrapped this election up, is this a realigning election? Trump has won Wisconsin, might win Pennsylvania, close in Michigan. He won Iowa and Ohio decisively.
Define realigning.
Yes. Sadly.
I predict the democrats try to appeal to working class whites by becoming more xenophobic and culturally conservative.
It’ll be like the 30 years after Reagan won in 1980.
Don’t worry though, the GOP will suffer a demographic collapse. Any day now.
I don’t know if it will be “become” as much as acknowledge that there is feeling out there considerably to the right of the mainstream Democratic Party.
[QUOTE=Fear Itself]
define realigning
[/QUOTE]
shorthand: an election which facilitates or is indicative of potential long term changes in the electoral landscape. Trump has won states no Republican since George HW Bush and Reagan won, like Wisconsin, likely Pennsylvania, potentially Michigan, won Ohio decisively as well as Iowa. 1992, 1968, 1932 are good examples. I would actually say 2016 has the potential to be a GOP version of 1992; Bill Clinton broke GOP streaks of 6 for 6 GOP in the prior elections for states like CA, IL, CT, NJ, MI, NH, ME, NM, and VT. He was a “different kind of Democrat” on social issues like death penalty, welfare, and crime. Trump has broken a 7 for 7 streak in Wisconsin, a 6 for 6 streak in Penn and that potentially in Michigan, a 6 for 7 streak in Iowa as well. He is a “different kind of Republican” on trade, social security and medicare, maybe foreign policy, etc.
I’m sorry, but I guess I’m not seeing it. Maybe it’ll happen, and god knows that change is fragile, but I’m just not seeing Democratic politicians governing or campaigning that way. Maybe because it’s so clear from this election how polarized the nation is; even if the liberal side is a minority, they’re there, in significant numbers, and they’re not going away. I can’t see significant political gains from abandoning that side.
I don’t think this is a realignment election, for three reasons:
-
His margin of victory is very narrow. This wasn’t like (Bill) Clinton in 1992.
-
Trump had unusual appeal to people in the Rust Belt states of Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, etc. A Cruz or Carson or Rubio or Ryan probably wouldn’t have carried those states.
-
The Rust Belt will probably go blue again in 2020 and beyond.
God I hope so, the Democrats have been working off the the belief that if they get elected the more liberal the better. Being the sane party means getting what you can now and playing the long game.
that is true that Bill Clinton won by 5.6%, Trump is likely to have won by ~1%. But a win is a win is a win. Like 1992, its likely people might try to attribute it to 3rd parties, but aside from the '92 exit polls strongly suggesting that Perot was a wash, when exit polls of Johnson/Stein voters come out, it will probably also be a wash. And even if in 2016, 3rd parties aren’t a wash, once again, a win is a win.
People thought NH, CA, ME, MI, IL, etc and other Bill Clinton states could’ve gone red in 1996. Bill Clinton saw that it didn’t happen. He even held his '96 convention in Chicago, IL. Don’t count on the Rust Belt just “going blue” because you might want it to or Trump may look like a fluke right now.
to add: Donald Trump is the first POTUS-elect in a century to lose his home state. Is there any political CW left???
No, not in the way you mean. People voted for Mr. Trump, not for any coherent set of ideals. There is nothing being rallied around except Mr. Trump, and people are doing that because they fucking hate politicians and politics and because Mr. Trump was famous already, had a large media presence and was completely available for people to project onto (it feeds his narcissism and egomania, after all).