With Barack Obama's victory and Democratic gains in Congress, more than a few commentators are talking about that "r" word so important in presidential politics -- "realignment." Was 2008 a realigning election? I don't think so.
The academic discussion of realignment began with V.O. Key's seminal 1955 essay "A Theory of Critical Elections." Key wrote that critical or realigning elections exhibit high voter interest and realigning voter turnout, as well as a shift in the dominant political ideology. Most often cited is FDR's victory over Hoover in 1932, which started a decades-long period of Democratic dominance. Americans tended to support government intervention in their lives to a greater degree than before the Great Depression. Hence, there had been a fundamental ideological shift.
Today, our elections are more candidate- than policy-centered, and detecting a seismic policy shift has become more difficult.
Still, many analysts compare 2008 to the 1980 election -- and it is true they have some similarities. Both Barack Obama and Ronald Reagan are seen as transformational figures. Both are thought of as Washington outsiders who would bring needed change in a time of domestic crisis. Both energized their party bases and attracted new voters.
But there's another similarity that disqualifies both contests from constituting a realigning election: The elections turned on their predecessors. Reagan's sound bite "Are you better off now than you were four years ago?" encapsulated what his campaign was about. The election was a referendum on Jimmy Carter's performance, and voters rejected it.
And 2008? George W. Bush's failures hung over the campaign. John McCain tried to distance himself from the president, but an October PSRA/Newsweek poll showed that 48% of those surveyed believed that if elected, he would continue to "carry out the policies of George W. Bush."
Mr. Obama ran on "change," repeatedly associating Mr. McCain with Mr. Bush. In an Oct. 27 speech, for example, Mr. Obama said, "the biggest gamble we can take is to embrace the same old Bush-McCain policies that have failed us for the last eight years."
Even more to the point, the congressional election results also cast doubt on the thesis that this year's election, or that of 1980, signals a political realignment. Republicans picked up 33 seats in the House and control of the Senate in 1980. But two years later, Democrats picked up 26 seats in the House and regained control of the Senate in 1986.
In 2008, Democrats picked up 19 House seats (with a few races still too close to call), but this represented the continuation of a trend from 2006, a year in which Democrats picked up a more impressive 31 seats. It is too early to conclude that 2008 marked the start of an enduring period of one-party domination or the continuation of short-term voter dissatisfaction with the GOP.
The 2008 election was an important election. But it can hardly be considered realigning.
Mr. Obama won by portraying the Bush presidency as a series of mistakes that need to be avoided in the future -- essentially encouraging voters to think about the short-term past, not the long-term future.
Put another way, Mr. Obama got about 40,000 fewer votes in Ohio than John Kerry got four years ago. Mr. Obama carried the state when Mr. Kerry did not because Republicans stayed home. Nationally, the anticipated record turnout didn't materialize. About the same percentage of registered voters came out this year as in 2004. And was that a realignment year?
In the same way that 1980 did not yield a generation-long period of Republican dominance, those on the right can take heart that 2008 does not represent the beginning of an era of Democratic supremacy.
Ms. Marsico is a research assistant at the American Enterprise Institute and a researcher/writer for the AEI-Brookings Election Reform Project.
