Beware of Those Who Call this Election A Realignment

Tonight’s election results will produce the usual rush to judgment by pundits and partisans alike. Given the magnitude of the projected GOP gains, the polls probably won’t even be closed in any state before at least one person in both of those groups begins to stay that this is the start of a realignment in U.S. politics that will last for generations.

Anyone who uses “realignment” tonight, tomorrow, or in the next few months to characterize the 2010 election will either be guessing or spinning.

It may well be a realignment, but anyone who uses that word tonight, tomorrow, or in the next few months to characterize the 2010 election will either be guessing or spinning. The fact is that there’s no way to know until long after it occurs — and I’m talking about years rather than hours after an election — that a political realignment has happened.

Realigning elections in the U.S. have three primary characteristics.

First, and most obviously, some block of voters switches its support from one political party to another. The change of many previously Republican-loyal voters to the Democratic party in 1932 and the change of blue collar workers from the Democratic to the Republican Party in 1980 are two of the best examples.

Second, the switch is not a one-time event and is not tied to a single issue or candidate. For a realignment to occur, the change in voting loyalty happens repeatedly over the subsequent elections.

Third, the switch occurs up and down the ballot. For a true realignment to occur, the change in voting has to show up not just at the top of the ticket — for president or governor, for example — but for state representatives, county and city council, judge, sheriff, and dog catcher.

Based on this, there is no way to know tonight, tomorrow, or by the time Meet The Press or any of the other Sunday talk shows air this weekend that the projected large GOP gains are, in fact, a political realignment. We’ll only know that after the next three or so local and national elections whether the voting changes that may occur in 2010 are repeated at all levels of government.

For all of those who tonight insist that there’s no reason to wait to confirm that the changes in voting are real and permanent and, therefore, a political realignment, remember that some were just as eager to use that word after the 2008 election.

Disclaimer: This page contains affiliate links. If you choose to make a purchase after clicking a link, we may receive a commission at no additional cost to you. Thank you for your support!

About Stan Collender 126 Articles

Affiliation: Qorvis Communications

Stan Collender is a former New Yorker who, after getting a degree from the University of California, Berkeley, moved to Washington to get it out of his system. That was more than 30 years ago.

During most of his career, Collender has worked on the federal budget and congressional budget process, including stints on the staff of the House and Senate Budget Committees; founding the Federal Budget Report, a newsletter that was published for almost two decades; and for the past 11 years writing a weekly column for and now

He is currently a managing director for Qorvis Communications, where he spends most of his time working with and for financial services clients.

Visit: Capital Gains and Games

Be the first to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.