Christian Raver

ENGL 102
Padgett TR 8:30-9:45
April 5, 2016
Realignment: Do Trump and Sanders Tell Us One is Coming?
Talking about American politics and elections can do one of two things: induce a quick
slumber or incite a riot. It is worth considering that such a pair of extremes in reaction says
something about the state of affairs in the world of American politics. To those who are brought
to their feet by political issues, every election season my give the greatest sense of urgency and
uncertainty, making one think that change is upon the country. A reality such as that is usually
not the case. Instead, well-understood and studied political norms stand true and maintain their
efficacy. However, in this years presidential contest, a trend has taken hold of the American
electorate that cannot be ignored.
Two candidates, Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders, have run campaigns that are
appealing to pluralities of the American electorate that reach across previously established party
lines. Both candidates are also activating, voters in primaries that were previously thought to
be non-factors, especially young voters and self-identified independents. This trend will be
investigated thoroughly here. These two trends, as well as others to be discovered here, are
notorious indicators of a political realignment, or a systematic rearrangement in the supporters
of each party (Campbell 210). It is within all likelihood that, by November of this year, either or
both of the afore mentioned candidates will have reorganized the American electorate in a way
that changes the way people identify their party of choice, but more so in the case of Mr. Trump.
Thusly, it can be said that the preferences of the American voter have shifted from the previously
understood norms and the American political landscape is facing a potentially tremendous
change and even a possible realignment.

Raver 2
But how do we know that this is the case, and not just an overreaction to a short-term
political upheaval that could correct itself? One must not only consider the typical conditions of
a realignment to decide, but also look at previous American realignments to find possible
parallels, specifically the 1932 realignment (the most recent in American history) that launched
the Democratic party into multiple decades of dominance. Such parallels could very well be the
indicators that the United States is in the midst of the election that catalyzes its next realignment.
Before any massive parallels can be drawn between 2016 and 1932, it must first be
determined if this election season fulfills the basic requirements of a realignment, otherwise this
inquiry serves no purpose. One of the most important features of a realigning election, as
determined by Saurzopf and Swanstrom, is a sharp increase in voter turnout, as a marked
increase indicates a short-term circumstance capable of mobilizing previously inactive voters
(Saurzopf and Swanstrom 75). Thus far in the campaign, nearly thirty percent of all eligible
voters, Democratic and Republican, in primary states have cast votes, a number only ever seen in
the record year of 2008, according to the Pew Research Center (Desilver 2016). Furthermore, if
voter turnout is separated by each party, one will find that Republican primary turnout has
increased from the nearly 10% average of eligible Republican voters since 1980 to 17.3% so far
in 2016 (Desilver 2016). Similarly, Democratic primary turnout has rebounded so far in 2016
from its low of 6.3% of eligible voters in 2012 to 11.7% so far in 2016 (Desilver 2016). This
kind of marked increase cannot and should not be dismissed simply because the turnout is
occurring in primaries and has not yet been proven to extend to the general election. Primaries
attract far fewer voters than general elections, and this increase in primary voters should be
viewed as a precursor to the explosion of general election turnout to come (Desilver 2016). By
this common measuring stick, the American electorate is primed for a realigning election.

Raver 3
With the largest prerequisite for realignment now in place, we can now attempt to
determine causality for the potential realignment in the context of the candidates in the race and
then compare that with the potential causality of the 1932 realignment. This is begs the multimillion dollar question, why are Mr. Trump and Senator Sanders, the candidates who inspired
this discussion, carrying such popularity with them?
So as to not fall out of favor with the candidate and risk the threat of a Twitter lashing for
not being fair, Mr. Trump shall go first. Since January 1st of 2016, Mr. Trump, a man that has
never ran for a political office before the presidency in his life, has never polled lower than
nearly thirty percent on a national average, with that number increasing to nearly forty percent
with a now narrowed field, as per the Real Clear Politics AVERAGE OF ALL accredited national
GOP primary polls (Realclearpolitics.com 2016).
One reason for this consistent success could be the nature of the primary process itself.
Collingwood suggests that when voters enter into the primary process, information about
candidate policy positionsis relatively rare, leaving voter decisions somewhat of an enigma,
defaulting to name recognition and personal character traits (Collingwood 233). For this reason,
especially the aspect of name recognition, Donald Trumps rise is less surprising in the early
stages of primary season. Had Mr. Trump laid out any true policy specifics early in the campaign
for early primary voters to truly consider? No. Does Mr. Trump have a brand associated with his
name that transcends politics? Yes. So, then, is there a deeper political reason for Mr. Trumps
rise in the early stage of the campaign that has carried him thus far? Maybe. In the early primary
state of South Carolina, an ABC exit poll showed that fifty-two percent of Republican primary
voters felt betrayed by Republican politicians, with similar results being yielded in Iowa and
New Hampshire (Shepard 2016). This is indicative of the mood of the Republican primary voters

Raver 4
early on in 2016, and could be related to a number of ongoing issues that the Republican party is
currently facing in government like the issue of healthcare, lack of economic growth, and
entitlement reform. So it is possible that voters who previously were not active in the political
process are ousting the current form of the GOP for something new.
Subsequently, the issue of electability or viability could explain Mr. Trumps continued
popularity in the latter stages of the primary season. In a 1980 study, Norrander concluded that
electability (ability to win in November) played a role in vote choice but only for states holding
primaries later in the nomination calendar (Collingwood 233). Polls from early in the primary
season back this theory, with about 20 percent of Iowa caucus-goers and 12 percent of New
Hampshire primary voters picked can win in November (Barone 2016). But later in the
process with the field narrowed and November looming near, the issue is more pressing and
sometimes requires voters who care about viability and electability to compromise for another
candidate. This could be the case with Mr. Trump, as by now, many of the remaining primary
voters could be of the opinion that Mr. Trump is the only candidate capable of winning the
Republican nomination and carrying a plurality of voters to the polls in November. Again, the
issue of policy does not prevail here.
As this compares to the New Deal realignment, similar circumstances dominated the
political landscape in the form of the Great Depression being a great national crisis, leading to a
conflict regarding governmental politics and the association of the major parties with relatively
clearly contrasting programs for its solution (Norpoth 154). Now, the economic and social
problems facing the United States in 2016 are certainly not the caliber of the Great Depression,
but to many in the American electorate, there is a sense of betrayal from a major political party in
government in their handling of such issues, leading to a sense of urgency and a groundswell of

Raver 5
voter mobilization. The same could be seen in 1932, where the nonpartisan segment of the
electorate that stayed aloof from electoral politics until a crisis like the Depression rouses it to
political life (Norpoth 149).
As for the Democratic side, Bernie Sanders is not the front-runner for the Democratic
Party, nor was he expected to be. Somehow, though, the Sanders campaign has managed to
narrow a spread of twenty-four percentage points between himself and Hillary Clinton to only
seven and a half points on average as of April 4th, as per the Real Clear Politics AVERAGE OF
ALL accredited national primary polls (Realclearpoltics.com 2016). As for how this is possible,
one must consider the theories of The American Voter, a work that pinnacled the field of political
science in the area of elections, realignments, and party identification. As per the theories of The
American Voter, the partisan balance shifts when a new generation of young voters, in response
to a profound event, enters the electorate with a partisan imprint that distinguishes it substantially
from the rest of the electorate (Notpoth 149). This shift in partisan balance could explain the
mobilization of the youth vote toward Bernie Sanders, as Sanders beat Hillary Clinton 84
percent to 14 percent among Democrats aged 17 to 29 (Silver 2016). However, the scholars
Erikson and Tedin would take issue with this generational approach as prescribe by The
American Voter. To them, voters across ages change party identification as they vote for the
opposite party under extraordinary circumstances (Notpoth 149). No one is saying that Senator
Sanders is attracting voters from the far right, but the same issues that are driving voters in the
direction of Donald Trump with parallels to the Great Depression and New Deal like economic
growth are also driving them toward the Senator, just in a different way.
The current atmosphere in American politics and the seemingly odd rise of the Donald
Trump and Bernie Sanders can be explained in similar ways. Both candidates face an electorate

Raver 6
angry at the current structure of governmental politics that is seeking a radical change. And both
candidates seem to be showing signs of providing a very new brand of party politics, while still
operating under the banner of the two major American parties. After 1932, The Roosevelt
administration funded a variety of different programs in an attempt to revive economic activity
(Kantor 621). Is that not what Mr. Trump and Mr. Sanders are promising (although to be fair, no
one know what Mr. Trump is really promising besides a large wall)? If there were no other
indicators of realignment than such a parallel between platforms, this discussion would hold no
water. But when voter turnout spikes as it has thus far in 2016, and sentiment against an
established party among its own voters reaches a majority level, one must consider that those
voters are going to remove themselves from the status quo of their party and seek something
else, which seems to be what is happening. One can consider the implications of a Trump or
Sanders White House once that actually happens, but for now just consider the implications of
the electoral politics themselves. Should Donald Trump win the Republican nomination and then
the general election, it will signify an abandonment of the current Republican Party platform by a
majority of the country; after all, it takes a majority to win the general in the first place unless
you are George W. Bush. Similarity, if Senator Sanders somehow comes back in the delegate
race and wins the nomination and then again in November, the race will indicate a change in the
preferences of the American electorate in a way not before seen. These are the premises that
realignments, or systematic rearrangement[s] in the supporters of each party, are built upon
and are the reason that the nature of electoral politics change swiftly and severely as they did in
1932 (Campbell 210). It will not be until and long after the 2016 general election has concluded
that a definitive answer will be able to be given on this inquiry, but nonetheless a Trump or

Raver 7
Sanders win would signify a possibly lasting change in the American political landscape that the
United States has not seen for more than eighty years.
Comments by Maryanne Martini:
1. The essay has a clear thesis; I did not see an inquiry question but there was a couple of
questions throughout the essay that could have represented an inquiry. There are in-text
citations and a works cited. The title is good but it does not really make me think and I
am a little confused who one is.
2. The writers stance on the issue is more of a statement than taking a side. I think it would
be beneficial to recognize if the writer thinks it is a good thing that the political parties
could be changing with American citizens attitudes or if the writer thinks this is a bad
thing.
3. I am not really sure what a different point of view would be for this essay just because I
am not sure what side the writer is on. The paper is very well written I just think that it
could be clearer on this subject.
4. There is synthesis in this essay and it is done very well. I highlighted two spots that I
thought you synthesized really well with two different sources in the first one and in the
second one I thought you synthesized well with a quote and your own words.
5. I think that the tone of the article is working really well and the quotes are very well
placed. I think the main thing that could be improved could be making it clear whether
you are for or against this political change. Another thing in your second paragraph that I
think you could do without is saying this trend will be investigated here. The title is
also good I just think it could be a little clearer.
Comments by Chris Silva:
1. The thesis introduced in this paper is general and clear, tell the reader whats coming in
the paper. The tittle seems to be the inquiry question and
2. The stands is well taken in the writing, supported by proof and citation for articles.
3. the writer is very clear in his points and offer a wide variety of points supporting his
opinion.
4. The paragraph follow up each other really well. The synthesis is really good the way to
switch from one paragraph to another was okay.
5. The citation was little bit confusion regarding the technic, the first two paragraph seems
to show the author and the page number from the article and going further in the paper
the reader can clearly see the change from the author name and page to the author name
and year of the article. The stand the writer is taking and the citation is blending together
very well and working very well. The conclusion is little bit longer than I thought it
should be. It almost look like a paragraph of the body of the paper. The citation are fine
as well nothing wrong with them.
Comments by Camille Mihalchik:

Raver 8
1. I think that the paper does provide a clear thesis; however, the author does provide
some questions throughout the paper, but I do not think that those are the inquiry
question. There is a lot of in-text citation as well as a works cited. I think that the title
is exactly what was asked from us and is strong.
2. I believe that the writer takes a stance saying that there are more radical presidential
candidates and that if they win, we could be looking at a change in the American
political landscape.
3. Yes, the writer provides a lot of different viewpoints on the two candidates
specifically mentioned, Trump and Sanders, along with a reference to 1932 and the
realignment.
4. Yes, I think that a very strong part of this paper is the synthesis of sources. I have
highlighted what I believe to be the strongest points of synthesis within the paper.
5. I think the sources and synthesis are the strongest parts of this paper. They all work
well together and provide a clear argument. I think the weakest part of the paper
might be the part where the writer ends the paragraph with a quote. As a reader, this
part can be a little bit confusing, so it might be beneficial to wrap up the paragraph
and quote with a sentence or two.

Raver 9
Works Cited
Barone, Michael. Who Will Win the Electability Vote? www.realclearpolitics.com. Real Clear
Politics, 16 Feb. 2016. Web. 4 Apr. 2016.
Campbell, David E. "The Young And The Realigning: A Test Of The Socialization Theory Of
Realignment." Public Opinion Quarterly 66.2 (2002): 209-234. Academic Search
Complete. Web. 4 Apr. 2016.
Collingwood, Loren, Matt A. Barreto, and Todd Donovan. "Early Primaries, Viability and
Changing Preferences for Presidential Candidates." Presidential Studies Quarterly 42.2
(2012): 231-55. ProQuest. Web. 29 Feb. 2016.
Desilver, Drew. So Far, Turnout in This Years Primaries Rivals 2008 Record.
www.pewresearch.org. Pew Research Center, 8 Mar. 2016. Web. 4 Apr. 2016.
Kantor, Shawn, Price V. Fishback, and John Joseph Wallis. "Did The New Deal Solidify The
1932 Democratic Realignment?." Explorations In Economic History 50.4 (2013): 620
633. Academic Search Complete. Web. 5 Apr. 2016.
Norpoth, Helmut, Andrew H. Sidman, and Clara H. Suong. "Polls And Elections: The New Deal
Realignment In Real Time." Presidential Studies Quarterly 43.1 (2013): 146-166.
Academic Search Complete. Web. 5 Apr. 2016.
Saurzopf, Richard, and Todd Swanstrom. "The Urban Electorate In Presidential Elections, 1920
1996." Urban Affairs Review 35.1 (1999): 72. Academic Search Complete. Web. 4 Apr.
2016.
Shepard, Steven. "5 Numbers That Explain Why Trump Won South Carolina." Politico.com.
Politico LLC, 20 Feb. 2016. Web. 29 Feb. 2016.

Raver 10
Silver, Nate. Why Young Democrats Love Bernie Sanders. www.fivethirtyeight.com.
FiveThirtyEight, 8 Feb. 2016. Web. 4 Apr. 2016.
Unknown. 2016 Democratic Presidential Nomination. www.realclearpolitics.com. Real Clear
Politics, 4 Apr. 2016. Web. 4 Apr. 2016.
Unknown. 2016 Republican Presidential Nomination. www.realclearpolitics.com. Real Clear
Politics, 4 Apr. 2016. Web. 4 Apr. 2016.