At this point I think so. I don't see Trump, Cruz, or even Rubio beating Clinton in 2016, and she'll probably have a strong enough first term to win again in 2020. Then the GOP would have to get its act together and nominate someone who could beat her VP, which isn't guaranteed to happen. Letting Bush into the White House was a terrible mistake on the GOP's part. It will haunt them for ages.
Democratic party in the white house permanently? You know having one party control is bad for the country correct? North Korea and Vietnam come to mind.
OK. So what's the solution if the country, you know, keeps voting for the same party? Is it for that party to unilaterally disarm because one party rule is bad? I never understood this objection.
It should work itself out anyway. Western democracies tend toward a minimum winning coalition.
The idea is that large majorities are inherently unstable, since large majorities will have more intra-party conflict. If there is a large majority, parties will shift their stance and new issues will emerge to break a group off of the "winning" party.
According to this theory if the Democratic presidential advantage becomes more and more impregnable, eventually the an issue will emerge and/or the GOP will change enough to peel off a group from the Democrats and even thing out again.
Poll
