I've written a lot about partisan realignments over the past several years. Above all, I've repeatedly pushed the idea that they happen with surprising regularity, like this:
Partisan Balance In US History
Through Six Party Systems
Control of Presidency, House & Senate
Dem-Reps: 12 / Feds: 2 / Split: 1
Dem-Reps: 9 / Whigs: 1 / Split: 7
Dems: 1 / Reps: 9 / Split: 8
Dems 3 / Reps: 12 / Split: 3
Dems: 13 / Reps: 1 / Split: 4
Dems: 3 / Reps 2.25 / Split: 13.75
While the realignment of 1932 is the most archetypal and among the most consequential, it can be quite misleading to think of it as the model. Indeed, there were two realignments in which one of the parties was totally destroyed, and other was radically transformed. In view of how little "change we can believe in" is actually happening post-2008, and how utterly blob-like the GOP has become, perhaps it's worth considering the possible lessons we might draw from the realignments of 1828 and 1860, both of which revolved around slow-moving scenarios in which both major parties failed in fundamental ways, two of them so profoundly that they ceased to exist.
STATE BLOGS
