Realignment

That word seems to be the new black this season. It's the euphemism many companies are using these days instead of "right-sized" which replaced "down-sized" which replaced "lay-off" (which, like 'lay-away,' had a certain optimism to it) which replaced "fired."

And it's the term being used in the debate over what last Tuesday's results mean for the future of the two parties.

Nate Silver looks at the history of "realignments," and finds the whole thing "silly." And he's right.

What ultimately distinguishes the elections that are considered to have been realignments is the efficacy of the governance of the rising party, rather than the force with which said party took office. Ronald Reagan and FDR, famously, had coattails -- but so did Warren G. Harding, who brought the Republicans a net gain of 123 (!) seats in the House in 1920. One might likewise have been tempted to consider the combination of the Democrats' landslide in the 1974 midterms and Jimmy Carter's ascendancy in 1976 a 'realignment'. Reagan and FDR, however, were effective Presidents, whereas Carter and Harding were not, quickly managing to relinquish most of what they had gained. Barack Obama, perhaps, may be the first President since Reagan in 1980 to have an opportunity to realign the country; whether or not he'll do so is another matter.