Deep below the election rhetoric, a subtle tectonic shift in the alignment of America’s two major political parties is becoming more apparent. The recent geopolitical alteration of party allegiances may be temporary, but there is a distinct possibility that 2012 marks this generation’s critical election.

President Obama’s victory in 2008 broke many of the barriers the Democratic Party had faced since the mid-20th century. The President was able to capture the southern seaboard states of North Carolina and Virginia without any home-state leverage, and gathered 66 percent support from an unprecedented 23 million voters aged 18-29 by building off of Howard Dean’s 2004 social media outreach strategy. Higher proportions of Latino and African American voters were also attracted to the Democratic tent. These historic gains, coupled with control of the House and Senate, reflected a geographic and demographic realignment with increased Democratic clout.

Fast-forward to 2012. Congress is divided. The President has little to show for his tenure except the highly controversial Affordable Care Act and a slow economic recovery. A Romney victory in November could be perceived as a swinging of the political pendulum away from Obama’s 2008 high-water mark. Recent polling, however, indicates this may not entirely be the case. The Republicans’ largest gains have not come in the southern and western states Senator McCain failed to secure in 2008, but rather in the Midwest. Likewise, President Obama has maintained substantial support in some traditionally conservative regions, but his advantage has waned significantly in Michigan, Wisconsin, and even his home state of Illinois.

All of these trends point to a critical election. Theorized by political scientist V.O. Key, past critical elections include the presidential elections of 1800, 1828, 1860, 1896, 1932, and 1964. These elections, relatively generational in occurrence, mark significant changes in partisan voting behavior and usher in eras of one-party control. Although recent political gridlock has cast doubt upon the predictive powers of the critical election theory, one could point to 2008 as part of a major shift in the country’s political landscape. Regardless, 2012 also has the potential to be a realigning election — though in favor of whom is a much more challenging question to answer.

If elected, Romney would be the first Republican president with a northern business background since Warren G. Harding. Mitt’s growing support in the Midwest may stem from his campaign’s emphasis on creating new jobs—an issue especially relevant in the recovering rustbelt. Perhaps more significant is Mitt’s father, George Romney, who served as Michigan’s governor from 1963-1969. On the other end of the ticket, Paul Ryan’s Wisconsin heritage, alongside Governor Scott Walker’s recent electoral victories, has helped to energize the local conservative base.

Romney’s support among traditional Republican constituencies, however, is becoming tenuous. Lack of enthusiasm among southern social conservatives and Senate candidate Todd Akin’s recent comments on rape have given Obama traction in Missouri. An emphasis on several rising GOP stars at the RNC convention, campaign ads targeting newly unemployed graduates, and a harder line on Medicare reform marks a Republican pivot toward the youth vote—it’s no accident that Romney and Ryan are the first pair of Republican nominees with a lower cumulative age then their Democratic opponents since Bush and Quayle in 1988. Furthermore, Romney-Ryan is arguably the first major party ticket not to include a Protestant, although the ramifications of this are still unknown.

Policy aside, the 2012 election will determine who will take credit, or receive blame, for America’s immediate future. A contested Senate, with historically competitive elections in Hawaii, Massachusetts, and Virginia, and an aging Supreme Court mean the victor of this presidential election will likely set the stage for at least a brief period of one-party control. Both candidates understand this, with Romney preemptively forging congressional alliances in order to advance his first 100 days agenda.

The predicted era of post-2008 Democratic dominance has not been realized. 2012 remains an opportunity for either party to take control of the American government. If early indications of geopolitical change come to fruition, 2012 could mark the beginning of a long-term political realignment—a Republican re-commitment to fiscal concerns and gains in the industrialized Midwest, simultaneous with Democratic in¬roads along the liberalizing Atlantic seaboard.

Christopher Mills is a freshman in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at cjm363@cornell.edu.