Search

For decades a narrative has dominated interpretations of American politics. Democrats formed the New Deal coalition by attracting northern white working-class voters in the 1930s. Then beginning in the 1960s the party became too liberal, lost the support of the white working class, and they began moving to the Republican Party. The purpose of this analysis is to assess and question the accuracy of this narrative. Just how much support did Democrats have from white working-class voters by the 1950s. Was there a decline in the 1960s or 1980 with Ronald Reagan? The evidence suggests there are significant problems with the narrative, and we need to reconsider what shapes white working-class political support. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The election of 1896 is regarded as a critical one in which a significant and enduring shift in party electoral fortunes occurred. This evidence is so important because it supports the more general argument that critical realignments are the way that significant electoral changes occur. Change is seen as abrupt, with new alignments persisting tier decades. Voters are seen as detached, briefly attentive, and then relatively stable in a new alignment. In this view, the political process is not seen as one in which there is continuous political debate, electoral attention, and secular electoral change. This analysis reexamines the evidence for the occurence of a critical realignment in 1896, using results for presidential and House elections. The data do not indicate that an abrupt change occurred in 1896. The changes that occurred were gradual, with most occurring after 1896. The evidence suggests that secular change and gradual electoral shifts should receive much more attention. Keywords: critical realignment; secular realignment; 1896 election; political parties