Unlikely. The system can’t support more than two dominant parties. That’s because of the way we run elections in this country (winner take all, without runoffs), the electoral college system, and a lot of other factors.

Essentially what we’ve had through most of American history, until recently, is one centrist party that tilts a bit left and another centrist party that tilts a bit right. However, both parties have (until recently) supported a relatively wide range of political views — from liberal “Rockefeller” Republicans to neoconfederate Democratic “Dixiecrats.”

It’s been only in the past couple of decades, in which the Republicans became dominated by right-wing extremists and demanded ideological purity within its ranks, that ideological purity became such a big deal.

If you’re saying that the old guard Dems in Washington (Hillary Clinton? Joe Biden? Ted Kennedy?) are going to become the new conservative party — son, are you nuts? Even though a lot of these politicians are a lot more conservative than the Right will acknowledge, righties would vote for Hitler first.

The Republicans will begin to receive lower contributions since they are out of power.

In fact, Republicans were “out of power” for most of the 1930s and 1940s, yet they raised money. That’s because they represent big money interests more than the Democrats do. The big corporate / special interests have always donated more money overall to Republicans than to Democrats.

And, as I said, if the old GOP collapses, the big corporations and megawealth that supports them now will see to it that a new conservative party is up and running in no time. The reason they’ve been so dominant for the past several years is that, back in the 1970s, a truckload of multibillionaires invested huge amounts of money to set up conservative think tanks and a media infrastructure that enables them to direct information flow and dominate news media (and if you believe the propaganda about the “liberal media” I KNOW you’re an idiot). That infrastructure isn’t going to go away if the GOP loses some elections.

You can make all of the historic references but in the past there was never such a large block that voted for one party with so much resisitence to change.

Nonsense. Actually there was more “solid block” voting in the past than there is now. There’ve never before been so many Independent voters than there are now. Party loyalty has been eroding among voters for several years.

The real discussion should not be about Republican failures but should be about the effects on the US of having one overwhelming political party. Image what will happen to industries such as Pharmaceuticals with the Democratic Party being in such a dominate position.

The real discussion for the past twenty years should have been about the effects on the US of having one overwhelming political party — the Republican Party, and it’s attempt to create a permanent Republican majority through gerrymandering and the K Street Project. If Karl Rove couldn’t create the permanent one-party majority that the Republicans wanted, it probably can’t be done.

A one-party government isn’t good for the country, and it doesn’t matter what that one party is. The difference between liberals and conservatives is that liberals understand that. Conservatives only catch on when the OTHER party is in power; if it’s their party, they think one-party government is just dandy. Judging by your concern for Democratic one-party dominance (as opposed to Republican, plus general idiocy), I assume you are a rightie. Get lost.

Also, in past times, the same politician/elected leader could go into the white middle class portion of a city or state and say one thing and then go into the black portion of a city ans say the exact opposite. Those days are long gone.

Also, Congress used to believe that it was elected based upon local issues. Yet, in election of the 2006 cycles, local issues (or issues in general ) just were not discussed. The Virginia Senate election was totally deviod of local issues. In the future, that will be all elections.

The best line I have heard about politics is that it is not sports. The Republicans do go get an easier schedule or higher draft picks because it lost.

In modern politics, there are many more negative feedback loops than positive. The Republicans will begin to receive lower contributions since they are out of power. And when they receive lower contributions it means that they will be competative in fewer races. Being out of power also means that fewer new people will want to be involved wtih the Republicans. Thus fewer new candidates to groom.

There is also no move that the Republicans can make because the Republicans just do not have those blocks of voters that will give them 90% of their support. If the Republicans try to become Democrat-lite, the social conservatives will not support them. This is different than the Democrats moving to the middle while knowing that the black, Jewish, and Hispanic voters will still vote for them in overwhelmingly numbers.

You can make all of the historic references but in the past there was never such a large block that voted for one party with so much resisitence to change.

The real discussion should not be about Republican failures but should be about the effects on the US of having one overwhelming political party. Image what will happen to industries such as Pharmaceuticals with the Democratic Party being in such a dominate position.

Be advised that you are talking to a five-alarm history nerd. And your reading is off. Don’t forget that before the rise of mass media, Americans had more newspapers per square inch than any other nation on the planet, and since the mid-19th centuries those newspapers ran much of the same news, acquired by the wire services — literally, through telegraph wires. National syndication of wire stories began during the Mexican War (1846–1848).

What you say about regional differences in the parties is somewhat true, but it’s still somewhat true — Republicans in the northeast are way differerent critters from Republicans in Mississippi. Since the formation of parties each one tended to have basic shared national principles and party platforms. In presidential politics, different regions of the country may have perceived the issues differently, but people voted on the same issues across the nation.

This served to limit any huge collapses

We haven’t had any huge collapses since the Whigs broke apart, true, but that’s not for the reason you site.

That will not occur in the future and especially cannot occur for the Republicans since now all elections are national elections.

There were national elections in the past as well. The Whig Party broke up in the 1850s over the national issue of slavery, for example.

I doubt the GOP will break up, but I think it’s likely it will change. And the parties have changed considerably over time. If you go back one hundred years, the Republicans were the party of civil rights and progressive government, and the Dems were the party of nativism, limited government, low taxes, and white supremacy.

Your argument is that blacks will someday start voting for the Republicans again. I would love for you to explain that scenerio to me.

If we’d be having this conversation in 1925, and I told you that someday large numbers of blacks would someday vote as a block for Democrats and not Republicans, you would guffaw and say “I would love for you to explain that scenario to me.” The point is that the factors that caused the shift were not apparant to anyone in 1925. Twenty years from now, there will be hot button issues on everyone’s mind that we today could not have anticipated. That’s how history works; it’s full of surprises.

For example, if you had told me ten years ago that today we’d be bogged down in a Vietnam-like war, I would have thought you were nuts.

Your reading assumes that the factors prevailing today are the only factors that will ever prevail, and that’s just dumb.

The one dynamic that’s fairly constant in U.S. history is that there are two major dominant national parties. These have not been the same parties; When the Whigs broke apart in the 1850s the Dems had the field to themselves for less than a decade before the GOP broke through and dominated the 1860 election by taking the White House; I believe they had a majority in Congress as well. And the party was less than ten years old. If that could happen in the 1850s, it can happen now, even faster.

I’m saying that if the GOP really does collapse as a national party, another national party will develop and take its place and will be winning national elections pretty quickly — possibly even more quickly than in the 1850s. Believe me, there is plenty of money in conservative pockets that will ensure this. I have no idea what party that would be and what it would look like except that it would be conservative.

It’s more likely, however, that the old GOP will reform to become nationally competitive again. In any event there will not be a dominant one-party state in this country for very long; probably no longer than one election cycle. That’s a healthy thing, overall.

My reading of history is that before the growth of electronic communication, political parties could take very different positions in different parts of the country of even in different parts of the same states. This served to limit any huge collapses That will not occur in the future and especially cannot occur for the Republicans since now all elections are national elections.

What is more likely, that the Republican Party will collapse or that large number of blacks and Hispanics will start voting for them? Your argument is that blacks will someday start voting for the Republicans again. I would love for you to explain that scenerio to me.

If you look at DC, the city’s residents have been voting Democratic for over 50 years now through scandal, riots, and incompetence. Yet, DC is still the bluest area on a map of the US and does not even have a functional political party other than the Democrats.

Look at all of the states north of DC. Every state is now solidly blue and no new Republican candidates stand a chance of winning state wide election.

If the Democrats update McCain-Feingold to limit issue ads at all times and to implement some sort of public finance, and pass some version of the Fairness Doctrine, it will be game over for all political parties except the Democrats.

I see a tipping piont where the Democrats, through demographics and cultural trends, reach a point that no other party will bother contesting most electons. At that point, the US will effectively be a one party state.

The first sign of the tipping point will be when states start trying to repeal initiative and referendum laws (California being a good example of a state of where the dominance of the Democrats is moderated by state wide initiatives).

The real question for the future is whether all people will start voting in the Democratic Primary and thus act as a buffer on the one party state or whether candidates will be choose in political deals and presented to the public for a rubber stamp vote.

My great-great grandpa, Fielding King, was one of Sherman’s quartermasters. He was with Sherman on that little stroll through Georgia.

I disagree. We gave them exactly what they deserved – W.T. Sherman! Although, truthfully, his reputation for “burning down the south” is overblown. He actually went rather easy on them – he destroyed much property but killed very few (REMARKABLY few by the standards of equivilent campaigns deep in enemy territory). His reputation for “savagry” were deliberate lies spread by southerners who were embarassed by his success and shamed by their own weakness (they talked about “insurgency” and how Sherman would be advancing to his own destruction, but he brushed them aside like so many tough-talking gnats). In fact,VDH does a good job is The Soul of Battle at exposing the true nature of southern complaints about Sherman (“Those horrible Yankees forbid me from ordering my slaves to work. I was even forced to cook my own food and wash my own clothes. Heavens to Betsy! Has there ever been a worse barbarism?!?!?!”).

Fuck the South, and especially Fuck Texas.

Alamo Shalamo – its still part of Mexico to me.

The Republicans could adopt the platform of the Democratic party and still could not win in the long run.

Also,since a replacement for the Republicans starts with the same issues of having no suport among blacks, hispanics, Asian, or Jewish voters, there is not way for a new party to win their support. Since most blacks live in a one party area now and most immigrants come from one party countries (like mexico) they will feel comfortable with a one party state.