The Fate of the Two-Party System in America

[RedFusion]

So what false cliche did the media tag Bush with?

They didn't really need to, all they had to do was play a speech of his.

http://video.lisarein.com/dailyshow/jan2005/jan202005/01-20-05-daily-shrub.mov

 

[Strider]

Only thing that might be remotely considered "Republican Propoganda" I've ever seen is a billboard that showed a baby and said "Vote Pro-Life." Although the billboard was later graffitied with cuss-word. Which I guess might be considered as good Democratic propoganda.

Although, I don't watch TV.. and I don't listen to any news.

 

[Lord_all_Mighty]

Gore lost in 2000 due to voter fraud.

It is also speculated that Kerry too lost to voter fraud.

 

[cgannon64]

Perhaps the Democrats remain a fringe party on the left, and the far right Republicans form their own party - unofficially, if not officially - thus leaving a moderate, benign Republican middle in power? Or maybe Republicans get as far as overturning Roe v. Wade and a bunch of other fantasies, and the backlash puts the rudderless Democrats in power until a new party, or new version of an old party, can put together a cohesive agenda?

What's most likely is that some new issue pops up, everything changes, and all of us are taken by surprise.

 

[Godwynn]

1) They have no chance at Congress in either 2006 or 2008. The distribution of seats up for election in 2006 makes it an all but certain Republican majority increase, or, at the very least, a net loss of a seat or two or three for the RNC. Not enough to even go back to 2003-2005 proportions. In 2008, should 2006 result in a loss of 2-3 GOP seats, the Democrats may have an outside shot at the Senate, but I doubt 2006 will go that way. The House is safely Republican pending the results of the next wave of redistricting.

Good call.

 

[JohnRM]

Wow. Utter and complete Wow-ness.

By the way, I "predict" that the Democrats will re-emerge as a winning party.

 

[warpus]

The Polish Beer-Lovers' Party will rule America once again

Hey, if they managed to win 16 seats in the Polish Sejm, maybe they could take America by storm.. and maybe things wouldn't get better.. but they sure as hell would get funnier! (official party motto.. of sorts)

 

[downtown]

Wow, some people don't look so smart now.

 

[Nylan]

Good call.

Isn't there traditionally a decrease in seats for the party in power during off-year elections anyways?

 

[Cutlass]

Isn't there traditionally a decrease in seats for the party in power during off-year elections anyways?

Generally. But there are no guarantees.

 

[I'm Cleo!]

Isn't there traditionally a decrease in seats for the party in power during off-year elections anyways?

Yeah, but 2006 was a big deal. Not a single Democratic incumbent lost. If I recall correctly, the Democrats took control of the House with bigger majority than the Republicans ever had in the 1990s and 2000s.

Now the real prediction would have been: who predicted that the Democrats would take power in a landslide victory in 2006, and George Bush would still get everything he wants from 2006 to 2008? Whoever called that one would be a genius.

Cleo

 

[JohnRM]

Yeah, but 2006 was a big deal. Not a single Democratic incumbent lost. If I recall correctly, the Democrats took control of the House with bigger majority than the Republicans ever had in the 1990s and 2000s.

Now the real prediction would have been: who predicted that the Democrats would take power in a landslide victory in 2006, and George Bush would still get everything he wants from 2006 to 2008? Whoever called that one would be a genius.

Cleo

Touche! Never would have predicted that!

 

[Keirador]

Yeah, but 2006 was a big deal. Not a single Democratic incumbent lost. If I recall correctly, the Democrats took control of the House with bigger majority than the Republicans ever had in the 1990s and 2000s.

Now the real prediction would have been: who predicted that the Democrats would take power in a landslide victory in 2006, and George Bush would still get everything he wants from 2006 to 2008? Whoever called that one would be a genius.

Cleo

Well, most of the Democrats elected were highly conservative. The Republican brand was unacceptable at the time, but that didn't make conservative voters liberal. Sort of the same situation we had during much of the 20th century with the Conservative Coalition.

 

[I'm Cleo!]

Well, most of the Democrats elected were highly conservative. The Republican brand was unacceptable at the time, but that didn't make conservative voters liberal. Sort of the same situation we had during much of the 20th century with the Conservative Coalition.

I don't think that's true. There certainly were more conservative Democrats (in conservative districts, the conservatives voted for Democrats), but there were more liberal Democrats, too. Carol Shea-Porter (D-NH) was thrown out of a Bush event for wearing a "Turn Your Back on Bush" T-Shirt. John Hall (D-NY) is a real liberal. It wasn't simply a matter of what letter the candidate had before his or her state.

Cleo

 

[JollyRoger]

A lot of people think that the Republicans and Democrats are as permanent as Gibraltar. This is untrue. Where are the Whigs? The Federalists? The Jeffersonian Democrats? The Populists? Throughout American history, major parties have risen and fallen. The Republicans of today only date back to the 1850s, and even then they were the liberal party compared to the conservative Democrats. It seems to me like it's about time for another major shift in politics.

It should be apperent to everyone who is paying attention that the Democrats are winning in America. Democrats have a clear majority in both the Senate and the House of Representatives. Democrat governors control a majority of states. A Republican president is a lame duck with histotrically low approval ratings, despite the advantage of having a war going on - an event that should give him a boost for his role as Commander-in-Chief. The current Republican nominee for President takes pains to avoid being seen with the current Republican President. The Supreme Court, even with the replacement of O'Connor, is now a pretty even split and that is expected to stay much the same, especially if, as if expected, a Democrat wins the Presidency in 2008.

More people are self-identifying as Democrats than as Republicans despite the fact that Republicans are allegedly outbreeding Democrats. On average, Republicans have larger families than Democrats, yet it seems that their children may not be sharing the politics of their parents; even with one party "focusing on the family" and courting fecund and non-contraceptive-using religious folk, and the other party embracing abortion, the trend for self-identification is leaning Democrat. It has been a Republican strategy for years, speculated to have been spear-headed by G.W. Bush himself, to ease up restrictions on Latin immigration, realizing that devout Catholic immigrants will, once they become settled in their new home, likely embrace the religious right and Republicanism. However, this may be a risky strategy backfiring due to the anti-immigrant vile spewed from the religious right and many Republicans. The current Republican nominee for President is struggling with Latino voters, despite being fairly immigrant-friendly as far as Republicans go. It is a future dominated by Democrats, from this angle.

Add to this idea with the notion that fissures seem to be opening within the Republican party itself. There seem to be two camps, a radical, "neo-conservative", uber-Christian group led by our Mr. Bush, and a more moderate, actually conservative, Reagan-esque group, led by good folks like Mr. McCain. How can the Republican party survive this fissure? Are we moving to the Democrats being the dominant party and two (or even three) minor parties representing the interests of the fis-cons, soc-cons, and neo-cons?

So, what is to become of the American system?

Poles coming.

 

[Gooblah]

At first I looked at the first page, and was like "WTF..."...and then saw the dates. I think there's potential to split in both parties:

Republicans would split into an Evangelical Christian/Radical Conservative Party and a Moderate Conservative Party.

Democrats would split 3 times. So-called Blue Dogs would join the MCs, and then a split into Protectionist/Radical Liberals and a Moderate Liberal Party.

 

[Cutlass]

A lot of people think that the Republicans and Democrats are as permanent as Gibraltar. This is untrue. Where are the Whigs? The Federalists? The Jeffersonian Democrats? The Populists? Throughout American history, major parties have risen and fallen. The Republicans of today only date back to the 1850s, and even then they were the liberal party compared to the conservative Democrats. It seems to me like it's about time for another major shift in politics.

It should be apperent to everyone who is paying attention that the Democrats are winning in America. Democrats have a clear majority in both the Senate and the House of Representatives. Democrat governors control a majority of states. A Republican president is a lame duck with histotrically low approval ratings, despite the advantage of having a war going on - an event that should give him a boost for his role as Commander-in-Chief. The current Republican nominee for President takes pains to avoid being seen with the current Republican President. The Supreme Court, even with the replacement of O'Connor, is now a pretty even split and that is expected to stay much the same, especially if, as if expected, a Democrat wins the Presidency in 2008.

More people are self-identifying as Democrats than as Republicans despite the fact that Republicans are allegedly outbreeding Democrats. On average, Republicans have larger families than Democrats, yet it seems that their children may not be sharing the politics of their parents; even with one party "focusing on the family" and courting fecund and non-contraceptive-using religious folk, and the other party embracing abortion, the trend for self-identification is leaning Democrat. It has been a Republican strategy for years, speculated to have been spear-headed by G.W. Bush himself, to ease up restrictions on Latin immigration, realizing that devout Catholic immigrants will, once they become settled in their new home, likely embrace the religious right and Republicanism. However, this may be a risky strategy backfiring due to the anti-immigrant vile spewed from the religious right and many Republicans. The current Republican nominee for President is struggling with Latino voters, despite being fairly immigrant-friendly as far as Republicans go. It is a future dominated by Democrats, from this angle.

Add to this idea with the notion that fissures seem to be opening within the Republican party itself. There seem to be two camps, a radical, "neo-conservative", uber-Christian group led by our Mr. Bush, and a more moderate, actually conservative, Reagan-esque group, led by good folks like Mr. McCain. How can the Republican party survive this fissure? Are we moving to the Democrats being the dominant party and two (or even three) minor parties representing the interests of the fis-cons, soc-cons, and neo-cons?

So, what is to become of the American system?

Poles coming.

JR, while that has some good points, I think you've underestimated the Democrats ability to self destruct and the Republican's ability to organize elections. Now there's not much they can do about it at the moment, but that could well change for 2010 or 12.

 

[WICKLC1]

It seems impossible for the Dems to lose after such an unpopular Republican president.

 

[Cutlass]

It seems impossible for the Dems to lose after such an unpopular Republican president.

Never underestimate the Democrat's ability to blow an election they should by all rights win.

 

[RedRalph]

It seems impossible for the Dems to lose after such an unpopular Republican president.

I doubt it. no offence, but the US electorate didnt learn form its mistakes in 04, no reason to think they will in 08.