The concept of critical realignment has shaped much of the thinking of political scientists and historians about the processes and patterns of change in American politics. Research on realigment has, however, tended to focus on successful cases and to concentrate on the electoral breakpoints rather than the process of regime formation, with the result that little systematic thinking has been devoted to the question of why some electoral upavals lead to party realignment while other large vote shifts do not. This article begins from the proposition that the election does not so much constitute the realigment as ofter the opportunity and the momentum election for the new part to build a lasting national coalition. Whether the party capitalizes on this potential depends on processes and events that follow the critical election, during what could be called the `consolidation phase' of the realignment. The question is ultimately one about public opinion but the concept of consolidation needs to take in the interaction between the public and political elites, since mass opinion is formed in the contest of elite initiatives and interpretations. The model of consolidation depicts two interrelated processes. The first involves strategic competition among elites, including elected officials and organied societal interests, who frame the conflict, by prioritizing issues and cleavages, and by relating policy proporsals to group identities and widely-shared values. The second focuses on the public. Their standing loyalties disrupted by the crisis and the incumbents' inability to deal with it successfully, citizens engage in a process of experiential search as they seek to re-establish the stable political orientation given by attachment to a political party. The article draws on qualitative information from the New Deal to ilustrate the model consolidation