We are facing this November the fifth most crucial Presidential election in American history.
Every Presidential election matters, of course, and in the midst of each campaign, there are those who will think it is the most important event ever to occur.
But in reality, the number of times that an election has been truly “crucial” is limited to what this author and blogger believes are only a few times.
Those few elections that have been crucial to the extreme would include, chronologically the following:
Election of 1860, a four way race, with the Civil War seen as on the horizon, and Abraham Lincoln winning with only 39.8 percent of the vote, over Stephen Douglas, John C. Breckinridge, and John Bell.
Election of 1864, in which Lincoln defeated former General George McClellan, at a crucial time in the Civil War.
Election of 1932, in which the nation was at its lowest economic point in history, with the failure of Herbert Hoover, and the alternative of Franklin D. Roosevelt and his New Deal.
Election of 1940, when America faced the danger of Fascism in the world, but isolationism reigned, and Franklin D. Roosevelt faced a businessman with no government experience, Wendell Willkie, as the world was engaged in World War II.
Now, in 2020, we face a CoronaVirus Pandemic; a collapsed economy worse than any time since the Great Depression; and a crazed, dangerous President who should have been removed from office for abuse of power, and instead is, effectively, taking the nation over the brink of the cliff that it is facing at this time!
So just as Abraham Lincoln and Franklin D. Roosevelt came to the rescue, each of them twice, now Joe Biden and his female running mate face the challenge of the greatest crisis in 80 years, and we have to hope he can gather the strength, courage, and decisiveness of Lincoln, FDR, and other great Presidents, including Harry Truman, John F. Kennedy, and Barack Obama in difficult moments in their Presidencies!
Kim Jung Un is in grave danger after having some kind of surgery.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/20/politics/kim-jong-un-north-korea/index.html
The topic “Realigning Elections†(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realigning_election#Realigning_elections_in_United_States_history) has been of interest to me, for several years, because they represent turning points in the history of this nation with respect to presidential elections. (“Turning Points†aren’t exactly the same topic as this blog title having the used the word “crucial†to describe Election 2020 and others from the past. But, it’s not all that different.)
I have been particularly interested in realigning elections mentioned by professor Walter Dean Burnham (b. 1930). He has a theory that realigning elections—at the presidential level with respect for the party system—have historically happened in the U.S. in increments of roughly 36 years. The following years have been cited: 1800 (Democratic–Republican; the first election under the party system; with all 7 cycles from 1800–1824); 1828 (Democratic, with 6 of 8 cycles from 1828–1856); 1860 (Republican, with 7 of 9 cycles from 1860–1892); 1896 (Republican, renewed, with 7 of 9 cycles from 1896–1928); 1932 (Democratic, with 7 of 9 cycles from 1932–1964); 1968 (Republican, with 7 of 10 cycles from 1968–2004); and, after a usual 36-year period last marked in 1968, it was delayed by one cycle in 2008 (Democratic, for however long a period which has yet To Be Determined).
This is a topic that involves many details, with history, to explain how these realigning elections happened. But, it interests me in part because of some noteworthy patterns to go along with the markings of those realigning presidential elections.
If the 2020 United States presidential election ends up a Democratic pickup—with the unseating of a Republican incumbent—the four election cycles of 2008, 2012, 2016, and 2020 will run a 40-year parallel of what played out 40 years ago.
1968 was a Republican pickup for Richard Nixon. 1972 was a Republican hold for re-election of Nixon. (Presidents residing over a realigning election, favoring their party, have been historically re-elected to a second term.) 1976 was a Democratic pickup for Jimmy Carter (having unseated Republican incumbent Gerald Ford). 1980 was a Republican pickup for Ronald Reagan (having unseated Democratic incumbent Jimmy Carter).
If we run that 40-year parallel, then 2008 was a Democratic pickup for Barack Obama. 2012 was a Democratic hold for re-election of Obama. 2016 was a Republican pickup for Donald Trump. And 2020 would become a Democratic pickup for presumptive nominee Joe Biden (having unseated Republican incumbent Donald Trump).
A party winning three of four cycles turns out to become the dominant party for winning the presidency for however long that realigning period plays out. So, the 2020 Republicans—conscious of this or not—should be wanting Trump re-elected for this and several other reasons. (If Trump becomes unseated, the catalyst will be COVID–19.)
One state involved in the 1968 realignment, and if turns out to be true that 2008 was also a realignment, was and is Virginia. That state voted with the Republicans—even when they lost in 1976, 1992, and 1996—in all ten cycles of 1968 to 2004. So far, if turns out 2008 marked a Democratic presidential realignment, Virginia flipped Democratic in 2008 for Barack Obama, carried for his re-election in 2012 and, when the party lost the White House in 2016, voted Democratic anyway. (Margins wise and for it where it ranked, Virginia has realigned and became the Democrats’ No. 15 best state in 2016—making it even bluer than, for example, Minnesota; that midwest state has carried for all Democratic winners since the realigning election of 1932 with Franklin Roosevelt.)
If 2008 was a realigning election, I would like to look back at prior realigning elections for which states—perhaps as influential bellwethers—voted for all presidential winners (obviously more than one party) during such periods. It motivates me to speculate about 2008, if that marked a realigning election, going forward.
Given the fact that the two major U.S. political parties today are the Republicans and Democrats, I have to start with the former’s first presidential victory with Abraham Lincoln in 1860.
1860–1892 — REPUBLICAN
• None; but the closest state was Indiana; it voted with presidential winners in 8 of 9 cycles; it carried for 1876 U.S. Popular Vote winner Samuel Tilden (D–New York); so, I score Indiana with 8.5 for 9 with its reliability of having carried for presidential winners during that period
1896–1928 — REPUBLICAN
• New Hampshire (9 for 9)
• North Dakota (9 for 9)
. Ohio (9 for 9)
1932–1964 — DEMOCRATIC
• Illinois (9 for 9)
• Massachusetts (9 for 9)
• Minnesota (9 for 9)
• Nevada (9 for 9)
• New Mexico (9 for 9)
• Rhode Island (9 for 9)
• Texas (9 for 9)
1968–2004 — REPUBLICAN
• Kentucky (10 for 10)
• Missouri (10 for 10)
• Ohio (10 for 10)
• Tennessee (10 for 10)
Depending on what plays out in 2020, and beyond, we can consider the thus far three presidential election cycles of 2008, 2012, and 2016 for the following states which did back each winner:
2008–TBD — DEMOCRATIC
• Florida (3 for 3)
• Iowa (3 for 3)
• Michigan (3 for 3)
• Ohio (3 for 3)
• Pennsylvania (3 for 3)
• Wisconsin (3 for 3)
(Side Note: 20 states were in the 2016 Democratic column which sided with U.S. Popular Vote winner Hillary Clinton, D–New York; it is too soon to consider those states as I do with the six above)
My theory, with Election 2016, is that four of those six states are more than 90 percent likely to vote with the winner of Election 2020: Florida, Michigan, Pennsylvania and, the tipping-point state of 2016, Wisconsin.
If 2020 becomes a Democratic pickup of the presidency, that party’s margin in the U.S. Popular Vote will have to be at least +6 to bring in one of the two (my guess is Iowa, Republican +9.41 in 2016) and +8 to bring in the other (Ohio, Republican +8.07 in 2016) which some think are generally trending away from the Democratic Party. But, with 2016 Republican margins of +1.19, +0.76, +0.72, and +0.22, Florida, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan are in bellwether-like position to once again side the winner in 2020.
The Rust Belt trio of Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan are particularly highly influential not just because of their 2016 results; even in the 2018 U.S. House elections, they reflected the U.S. Popular Vote margin for U.S. House. Together, they averaged for the Democrats +8.51 to the U.S. Popular Vote of Democratic +8.56. (In 2016, the Rust Belt trio averaged a margin of Republican +1.77 to the national Republican +1.08.) Coming closest in both 2016 and 2018—U.S. Popular Vote for U.S. House—was Michigan. In 2016, it was Republican +1.06 to the national Republican +1.08. In 2018, it was Democratic +7.68 to the national Democratic +8.56.
With results like that, you can see why there is such focus on Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan as the leading bellwether states from 2016 and here in 2020.
Even though Wisconsin didn’t deliver any 2018 Democratic pickups for U.S. House, it—along with the other two Rust Belt states—did experience a Democratic pickup in some way with, specifically, its governorship (Tony Evers having unseated Scott Walker). Pennsylvania delivered a net gain of +3 U.S. House seats to the Democrats. Michigan, like the next paragraph’s specified state, delivered +2 U.S. House seats as one of 21 involved states which delivered a net gain of +40 seats to the Democrats having flipped the lower chamber of Congress. It also delivered a Democratic pickup of its governorship.
Florida was the only state, in 2018, which reflected the overall results for which party won the overall majorities for U.S. House (Democratic pickup), U.S. Senate (Republican hold), and U.S. Governors (Republican hold).
2018 Florida delivered Democratic pickups of +2 seats for U.S. House. (So, it—and Michigan—was on average with the involved 21 states that delivered the U.S. House to the Democrats.) With the Republicans having won the overall seat gains for U.S. Senate, Florida was the only bellwether state which delivered a U.S. Senate Republican pickup. And, when it came to U.S. Governors, the 2018 Democrats needed a U.S. Popular Vote margin of +6 but reached +3. (The 2014 margin, for U.S. Governors, was Republican +4.09. The 2018 margin, for U.S. Governors, was Democratic +3.07.) The 2018 Democrats ended up going from 16 to 23 governorships. Based on margins, had the Democrats reached a new majority of 26 governorships, ranking No. 24 was Florida (followed by No. 25 Georgia and, as the tipping-point state, No. 26 Iowa).
If 2008 was a realigning election for the Democrats, for winning the presidency for the bulk of 30-plus years, at least one of Florida, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin may become well-positioned to carry for all presidential winners during such period.
A correction:
Ohio voted for all United States presidential election winners during the Republican realigning period of 1896–1928. (Yes, Ohio—which has historically voted for all winning Republicans—carried for winning Democrat Woodrow Wilson in both 1912 and 1916.)
Since 1896, the state of Ohio backed all presidential winners with exceptions in 1944 and 1960 (which is why that state is not on the list of the 1932–1964 Democratic realignment).
Thanks, once again, D, for your wonderful analysis!
Republicans Are Desperate for Another Tea Party Movement
https://washingtonmonthly.com/2020/04/21/republicans-are-desperate-for-another-tea-party-movement/
According to the latest NBC/WSJ poll, Joe Biden leads Donald Trump nationally by seven points (49-42). But here’s the news that really counts.
[[W]hen the race is reduced to 11 swing states—Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin—Biden’s combined lead over Trump is 6 points, 49 percent to 43 percent.
Demographically, he’s where a winning Democratic nominee usually wants to be: His biggest advantages are with African-American voters (where he leads Trump, 85 percent to 7 percent), Latinos (60 percent to 26 percent), voters ages 18-34 (54 percent to 31 percent), women (56 percent to 35 percent) and whites with a college degree (55 percent to 37 percent).]
Things don’t look much better for Republicans when it comes to retaining a majority in the Senate. Right now, Cook Political Report lists four GOP-held seats as toss-ups: Arizona, Colorado, Maine, and North Carolina. Cook might be a bit more bullish on behalf of Republicans than is warranted, as demonstrated by the fact that they still consider Arizona to be a toss-up. Democrat Mark Kelly has led Republican incumbent Martha McSally in the last nine polls—most recently clocking in with a nine-point advantage.
All of that might help explain why so many Republicans are desperately hoping for a renewal of the Tea Party spirit that garnered so much attention during the Obama administration. As David Catron demonstrates, they think they’ve found it in the recent lockdown protests.
[At the national and state levels [Democrats] have disregarded voter lockdown protests with the same disdain with which they ignored the Tea Party movement ten years ago. The Democrats have clearly forgotten the price they paid for that blunder. Between 2010 and 2016 they lost Congress, 13 governorships, 816 state legislative seats, and finally the presidency. They regained some ground in 2018, but they won’t retain it if they don’t recognize the protests as the foreshock of an electoral earthquake.]
It is possible that these protests will grow over time. But at the moment, what we are seeing is a few dozen protesters in states with millions of voters. Meanwhile, this is what we’re seeing in the polls.
[More than eight in 10 voters, 81 percent, say Americans “should continue to social distance for as long as is needed to curb the spread of coronavirus, even if it means continued damage to the economy.†Only 10 percent say Americans “should stop social distancing to stimulate the economy, even if it means increasing the spread of coronavirus.â€]
That hardly registers as an “electoral earthquake.â€
Republicans face a few challenges when it comes to reigniting the Tea Party fervor. The most important ingredient that is lacking is an African American president. There can be no doubt that the previous movement was fueled by racism.
With that as the groundwork, Republicans were able to spread lies about Democratic policies—such as “death panels†in Obamacare.
It was fairly easy to lie about a program that hadn’t been implemented yet. But things are different with a pandemic. Contrary to what some people think, the coronavirus is spreading in the Republican stronghold of rural America.
[Just as cases are starting to plateau in some big cities and along the coasts, the coronavirus is catching fire in rural states across the American heartland, where there has been a small but significant spike this week in cases. Playing out amid these outbreaks is a clash between a frontier culture that values individual freedom and personal responsibility, and the onerous but necessary restrictions to contain a novel biological threat.
The bump in coronavirus cases is most pronounced in states without stay at home orders. Oklahoma saw a 53% increase in cases over the past week, according to data compiled by Johns Hopkins University. Over same time, cases jumped 60% in Arkansas, 74% in Nebraska, and 82% in Iowa. South Dakota saw a whopping 205% spike.]
A lot of people think that this new protest movement is bigger than it actually is because the news media has become obsessed with it, as Eric Boehlert documented.
[Anxious for a political angle to the ongoing pandemic story and one that can produce instant conflict (as well as compelling pictures), the news media are showering attention on the small groups of GOP protesters who are angry about life-saving social distancing orders issued by governors to battle the Covid-19 pandemic…
Proving once again that every Beltway news cycle revolves around the very simple question of, ‘What are Republicans angry about today?, the recent emergence of Trump-sanctioned protests has grabbed the media’s attention, even though some events are drawing modest crowds.]
None of this is to suggest that Trump’s supporters lack angst or enthusiasm. That is a given. But even 72 percent of Republicans say that Americans should continue “social distancing†measures. That doesn’t sound like a Tea Party revolt to me.