were the following elections 'realignments'?

[Rob]

1896: Hell yes- it's the textbook example, really. McKinley slaughtered Bryan in the cities (although the Democratic machines in New York City and Boston enabled Bryan to eke out victories IIRC); the western/southern alliance which had taken control of the party alienated urban voters with all the wild talk of agrarianism (and free silver, which would have screwed urbanites with inflation). Furthermore, McKinley was pro-union.

Of course, Bryan made strong inroads among traditionally Republican voters- struggling farmers on the Great Plains, who had voted Populist in 1892. He also won massive victories among miners and Mormons. Alas, it was not to be a permanent coalition, as farmers returned to the GOP fold with the return of (relative) prosperity. The Mormons also switched parties, to the extent that Utah was one of only two states in the nation to back Taft in 1912.

Summing up: McKinley forged a strong bond between the cities and prosperous rural areas, which dominated American presidential elections until 1928. White southerners were soon the only reliable Democratic voters, refighting the Civil War every four years at the ballot box.

1932: No, contrary to popular belief. The realignment of this period had largely taken place four years earlier, when Al Smith was the Democratic standard-bearer, and it was completed in 1936 (more on that later). As a Roman Catholic, Smith drew countless immigrants to the polls, many of whom had never bothered to vote before. His urban appeal was such that he won the aggregate vote of the nation's thirteen largest cities... even if it had the unfortunate consequence of pissing off southern WASPs to the extent that he lost five states of the old Confederacy. He did win overwhelming victories in the Deep South, where whites didn't give a f**k about his religion (they were too busy worrying about the Republican black folk).

He also foreshadowed FDR's success among the farmers of the Great Plains, due to his support for farm relief (he lost a massive number of votes that Progressive Robert LaFollette had won in the region four years before; this is because LaFollette was much more radical and, perhaps as importantly, was a Protestant). He won a sizable number of rural counties in Nebraska (likely due to the support of progressive Republican Senator George Norris), and polled well among farmers in the rest of the drought belt (perversely, McPherson County in South Dakota backed Smith in 1928 and Landon in 1936).

Summing up, Smith brought the cities back into the Democratic fold and built a respectable base among wheat farmers in the West. In 1932 FDR continued the trend, but it was by no means a realignment in itself: he canceled out the fluke GOP victories in Dixie (understandably, the Outer South wasn't feeling particularly well-served by its giddy fling with Republicanism); polled dramatically better among western farmers (who were, of course, more enraged than ever before and had the added incentive of voting for a cleancut Protestant); and built on Smith's urban victories (although he received six thousand fewer votes in Boston than Smith had, so make of that what you will).

in 1936, the whole bloody affair came to a finish as the coal-country in Kentucky and West Virginia unionized and went Democratic for the first time in memory; those cities which had stubbornly voted for Hoover in 1932 (Philadelphia chief among them) re-entered the mainstream with strong support for FDR; and for the first time in history, blacks supported the Democratic ticket (Hoover had won a majority of blacks in 1932). So you see, it was a very long process.

My post is already ridiculously long, so I'll refrain from commenting on the other elections... maybe tomorrow.

[Demented Voter]

Not really sure if it's accurate to see 1928 as the realignment of the period either; it's probably better to see it as the beginning of a relatively long period in which just about everything really did realign (unlike in many other alledged realignments).
Good summary of the changes though.

[Rob]

Not really sure if it's accurate to see 1928 as the realignment of the period either; it's probably better to see it as the beginning of a relatively long period in which just about everything really did realign (unlike in many other alledged realignments).

That's what I was trying to get across, although I'm not sure I did the best job

Good summary of the changes though.

Thanks. I'm glad you were able to make sense of my caffeine-fueled ravings.

[Sam Spade]

1860 - yes
1876 - not really
1896 - definitely yes
1932 - Bob's post summarized it well, a sort of
1968 - in some sense, yes.  the turning point to me is more of 1974 (as odd as it may sound)
2000 - no, plus it's too early to tell

[Max]

1876 - not really

btw: I never heard of 1876 as a realignment. What was the special act of realigning?

The South became solid Dem?

[Virginian87]

1860 - Of course.  It marked the emergence of the Republican Party on the stage of American politics.
1876 - No.  The South and North were not completely divided by party yet.  Samuel Tilden won quite a few Northern votes, including New York, New Jersey, Indiana, and Connecticut.  Hayes also carried South Carolina, Louisiana, and (in a disputed voting process) Florida.  Hayes won these states because many Southern whites were still disenfranchised from voting due to Reconstruction, which was still going on at the time.  This was the last election that any Deep South state would vote Republican in a presidential election for a long time.
1896 - Definitely.  Rob summed this election up perfectly.  The Democrats became a party more or less confined to the South for the next thirty-six years, while the Republicans forged a winning coalition by uniting the Northern cities with upper Midwestern farmers.  The only time a Democrat prevailed between 1896 and 1932 was when there was a split between the Progressive and Conservative wings of the Republican Party.
1932 - Yes.  Bob made an excellent argument to the contrary, but Franklin Roosevelt created the New Deal coalition in the depths of the Depression.  FDR united his followers on the point that the Republicans had handled the Depression terribly, and in doing so created a force that would dominate the Democratic Party for the next four decades.  The coalition was very diverse, comprised of Southern segregationist whites, inner-city whites, Great Plains farmers, and for the first time a substantial number of black voters.  The first two elections of Franklin Roosevelt are important because for the first time blacks began to vote for the Democratic Party instead of the "Party of Lincoln".
1968 - It was not a realigning election itself, but it was an important stepping stone in a much more gradual process.  The realignment toward Republican strength in the South began in 1964, continued on the presidential level in 1968, and eventually continued to the state and local level over the next quarter century.  Not until the congressional elections of 1994 was this realignment completed.
2000 - No.  There were no major changes here that I think will set a huge precedent for future elections.

[Virginian87]

The South became solid Dem?

Between 1896 and up until 1968, the South voted almost exclusively for Democratic candidates on the presidential level.  The "Solid South" did not completely break on the state and local level until 1994.

1968 marked the end of the southern white democrat presidential voter.

there are no more left.  they are extinct.

Haha, then what kind of voters are Frodo, Preston, and myself?  There certainly aren't as many as there were in the past, but Southern white Democrat presidential voters are still out there.

[Demented Voter]

That's what I was trying to get across, although I'm not sure I did the best job

Ah... that's O.K then

Oh and strictly speaking, parts of the Central Appalachian coalfield usually voted Democratic anyway; but never by large margins (with the exception of a couple of very isolated counties in Kentucky largely settled by Virginians). But yes, the switch to being Democratic strongholds only came with "The President Wants You To Join The Union".
Interestingly enough, the area only swung very hard to the GOP when the Democrats started running Cleveland as their Presidential candidate.

Thanks. I'm glad you were able to make sense of my caffeine-fueled ravings.

[Max]

The South became solid Dem?

Between 1896 and up until 1968, the South voted almost exclusively for Democratic candidates on the presidential level.  The "Solid South" did not completely break on the state and local level until 1994.

I know about the Solid South, I was asking myself if the growing supremacy of the Dems in the south was the reason to call 1876 a realigning election.

[Mideast Assemblyman Ben for Senate]

1860-Yes
1876-Yes
1896-Yes
1932-Yes
1968-Yes
2000-No

[Хahar]

1860 - Yes.
1876 - Yes, but to a lesser degree than 1860.
1896 - No, because the Republican party had a brief honeymoon on the left after this election, then established itself firmly on the right.
1932 - Yes, it began the liberal movement that culminated in 1964.
1968 - Yes, this was when the Democratic coalition of blacks and white supremacists exploded.
2000 - Not really, since the Democrats look set to recapture the White House in 2008.

[J. J.]

1860, Obviously

1876, no, and actually most of the presidential elections until 1892-6 were close and Congress bounced back and forth.

1896  Yes

1932  Obviously


1968 - No
2000 - No

[Michael Z]

1860 - obviously
1876 - sort of
1896 - somewhat
1932 - definitely
1968 - not that much
2000 - no

1968 marked the end of the southern white democrat presidential voter.

1976?

But no, you're right, of course. Nixon's Southern Strategy (alongside knock-on effects from the civil rights struggle) basically turned the South into a Republican stronghold. Carter in '76 was more of an aberration, perhaps the last time a Democrat would manage to win the South.

(Of course, never say never, so I'm not going to say that a Democrat will never win the South again - demographic and sociopolitical shifts happen, so who knows what the political landscape will look like 30-40 years from now.)

[Lief]

1860- Yes
1876- Not really. It caused the end of reconstruction, which would re-align the country.
1896- Yes
1932- Clearly.
1968- Yes
2000- I think it will prove to be, yes.

[Northeast Representative Doctor Cynic]

1860 - Yes
1876 - No... Votes were distributed fairly equally
1896 - This is THE realigning election
1932 - No
1968 - Minorly
2000 - No... The 2000 trends have been going on since about 1996