Transition to one-party-system

[Epaminondas]

Imagine how bad Democrats would be right now if Biden actually ran and won in 2016. By 1993, the Republicans were wiped out downballot.

Not exactly the same, since the House has been democratic for 40 years by 1992. Electors just hadn't been brainwashed by Fox News yet and trusted Democratic legislators reflexively over Republicans.

As for the Senate, a Biden win in 2016 would almost certainly have carried McGinty in Pennsylvania, and arguably Kander in Missouri.

So a 50-50 Senate, before a bloodbath in 2018 (perhaps 56-44) then probably the same result in 2020, maybe Perdue holds on: 54-46 GOP.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Israel has transitioned into the Likud party, I don't see why not.  Also, the insurrection has damaged the well voters had on the he R party that's why Mcconnell is so angry with Trump, he single handily blew R chances in midterms.
Yeah, that's what Rs want you to believe
We aren't gonna have another 2010 Election in 2022/ all of our races are in the 306/ EC votes that Biden won and D Govs have a 52% approval rating like Biden

Forget 2024/ Bob Casey Jr like Fetterman solidifies PA the most important battleground state

I don't think so. Nobody will remember the insurrection by 2022, let alone 2024.

Nobody will remember the insurrection... unless it occurs again.

[Duro]

No more than any other western country usually being dominated more by one side than the other.

At the moment, the Republicans are still the dominant party at the state level, so the fact that democrats hold an extremely narrow trifecta federally doesn't really mean that much.

DC/PC statehood will only diminish the GOP's advantage in the senate, but they will still hold the advantage.

Packing the SC won't happen.

Too categorical. For me a one-party political system has two distinctions. 1) The party in power controls all branches of power, executive, legislative, judicial. 2) Other parties cannot come to power.
Democrats controlling Congress and Government, nothing can prevent them from increasing the nujber of SCOTUS members. Republicans weakened by chaotic and incompetent Trump rule, won't be able to win any elections in the next 5 years at least. If Trump realizes his plan to form his own party Republicans will disappear from the poltical stage. Democrats have a clear path for absolute dominance unless they make stupid mistakes.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

The FBI isn't finished with Prosecuting Insurrectionists, and there is still an Impeachment trial, that's why the insurrectionists is long lasting. Not to mention Prosecution of Trump going forward

Insurrection isn't gonna be remembered by 25% of Trumpians but 41% of nation are indies, that helped elect Ossoff and WARNOCK

Remember Merrick Garland is still waiting to be confirmed

[HisGrace]

No more than any other western country usually being dominated more by one side than the other.

Germany has been run by a single party for the past 15 years.

Not the same thing since Germany is a parliamentary system. In the US you have to control both the WH and Congress, with congressional elections happening every two years. There are many more opportunities to lose power.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

For what it is worth, for all of the references of the GOP "going the way of the Whigs", this would be them "going the way of the Federalists/early 18th century Tories".

The single party that emerges always splits in two though or devolves into factionalism then splits in two.

[Duro]

For what it is worth, for all of the references of the GOP "going the way of the Whigs", this would be them "going the way of the Federalists/early 18th century Tories".

The single party that emerges always splits in two though or devolves into factionalism then splits in two.

"always splits" is an oversimplification. Democrats may split or may not.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

For what it is worth, for all of the references of the GOP "going the way of the Whigs", this would be them "going the way of the Federalists/early 18th century Tories".

The single party that emerges always splits in two though or devolves into factionalism then splits in two.

D's have the female vote, the D's won't split into two parties and we are the Majority
"always splits" is an oversimplification. Democrats may split or may not.

[pbrower2a]

1932-1968 was arguably that as democrats held a trifecta for 26/36 years

Eisenhower was President for eight years. Republicans held the House for a couple of years in the 1940's.

...If the Republican Party should go into oblivion as such moderates as there are leave, then the Democratic Party becomes an unwieldy Big Tent before it splits into something analogous to the SDP and CDU in Germany.

[Epaminondas]

No more than any other western country usually being dominated more by one side than the other.

Germany has been run by a single party for the past 15 years.

Exactly. But it still isn't a single party country. A social democrat was chancellor for the 7 years preceeding that and Social Democrats have been part of the CDU led government.

Are you claiming that the SPD still wields any federal power?
I've moved out of Germany, but that is certainly not what I heard from locals.

The SPD hasn't truly garnered more votes than the CDU since 1998, and since 2013 they have been running 10 points behind them.

If the GOP lost 3 presidential elections in a row at a 45-55 clip, would you be saying it's still a governing party?

[Duro]

Comparison with Germany is incorrect since it is parliamentary Republic.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

For what it is worth, for all of the references of the GOP "going the way of the Whigs", this would be them "going the way of the Federalists/early 18th century Tories".

The single party that emerges always splits in two though or devolves into factionalism then splits in two.

"always splits" is an oversimplification. Democrats may split or may not.

D's have the female vote, the D's won't split into two parties and we are the Majority

Are you seriously saying that a single party is going to hold 100% of the vote and not split at some point?

[BlueSwan]

No more than any other western country usually being dominated more by one side than the other.

Germany has been run by a single party for the past 15 years.

Exactly. But it still isn't a single party country. A social democrat was chancellor for the 7 years preceeding that and Social Democrats have been part of the CDU led government.

Are you claiming that the SPD still wields any federal power?
I've moved out of Germany, but that is certainly not what I heard from locals.

Given that they are part of a coalition government with CDU, I don't see how the answer can be anything other than YES.

The SPD hasn't truly garnered more votes than the CDU since 1998, and since 2013 they have been running 10 points behind them.

Doesn't matter in multiparty systems, really. In Denmark, the social democrats have been the biggest party since 1924, except for periods in the 00's and 10's. That doesn't mean that we haven't had many center-right governments.

If the GOP lost 3 presidential elections in a row at a 45-55 clip, would you be saying it's still a governing party?

Depends on how they do in the other branches of government and at the state level.

[Red Velvet]

In some respects, you could say they already have been since the 80s lol

But seriously, I hope it doesn’t happen. Democrats can be much worse and even more irritating than republicans in some regards. With republicans at least you know what to expect and you prepare yourself accordingly with a measured counter-action. Democrats will smile and act like they’re your friend just to stab you in the back when you expect it the least.

I’m counting on those Latinos to keep shifting towards republicans. Not a good strategy to rely on immigrants and assume they’ll automatically identify with you.

[MillennialModerate]

Even if you dismiss all the pitfalls of any one-party system, a US one would be particularly horrible because it would give that much more power to the Iowa caucuses.

Er, the Iowa Caucus is far less relevant than it used to be these days: SC is much more important on the Dem side (because it effectively gives Black voters a veto over the nominee), and increasingly so on the GOP side.

Exactly. Iowa and NH lost a lot of significance with someone getting CRUSHED in both and still winning. Although it still is true that you need to win or come in second OR have an unreal turnaround. Which of course Biden did

[Duro]

For what it is worth, for all of the references of the GOP "going the way of the Whigs", this would be them "going the way of the Federalists/early 18th century Tories".

The single party that emerges always splits in two though or devolves into factionalism then splits in two.

"always splits" is an oversimplification. Democrats may split or may not.

D's have the female vote, the D's won't split into two parties and we are the Majority

Are you seriously saying that a single party is going to hold 100% of the vote and not split at some point?

No need to have 100% of vote. Democrats will have steady majority in both chambers to take all decisions they think necessary. Republicans will be represented but will have no clout.

[Never Made it to Graceland]

1. Legalize millions of immigrants. Millions of new citizens will gladly vote for the Democratic Party.

If we should take anything away from the 2020 elections, it's that immigrants are absolutely not guaranteed for the Democratic Party...

Except the immigrants who swung to Trump were Tejanos (basically rednecks who can speak Spanish and go to mass) who have mainly already been in the country for centuries and Cuban exiles who aren't exactly a replicable demographic.

[Technocracy Timmy]

The United States (and the GOP) was led by a horribly incompetent buffoon who bungled the covid19 response in a spectacular fashion. He could’ve easily emulated somebody like Boris Johnson and saved face but refused. We experienced the worst economic downturn in 4 generations. The end result was a narrow electoral college loss (tipping point state went for Biden over Trump by 1.18% points). Trump got a higher percentage share of the vote than he did last time. He had the best performance among non-white voters in decades (with 04’ being the exception). The GOP even net gained 14 House seats.

There’s nothing substantive suggesting a one-Party system anywhere in the next 20+ years.

[Person Man]

1. Legalize millions of immigrants. Millions of new citizens will gladly vote for the Democratic Party.

If we should take anything away from the 2020 elections, it's that immigrants are absolutely not guaranteed for the Democratic Party...

Except the immigrants who swung to Trump were Tejanos (basically rednecks who can speak Spanish and go to mass) who have mainly already been in the country for centuries and Cuban exiles who aren't exactly a replicable demographic.

“Hispanic” is basically anyone who speaks Spanish at home or at least who had a parent or grandparent who did. We need something more granular to be descriptive.

[Shaula🏳️‍⚧️]

This thread will age terribly

[Crumpets]

My interpretation of 2020's surge in turnout is that it suggests a much less stable electorate than we have come to assume.

The INC/BJP-esque dynamic between the Democrats and Republicans hardly suggests that the former are guaranteed a happy electoral future - the relevant ethnic majority here comprises two-thirds of the electorate and is permeable enough to admit many members of other groups - but that's hardly the only salient comparison.

I'm not as familiar with Indian politics, but this post made me curious - is there a similar gender disparity between Indian parties as you see in US politics, and if so, does it vary by region?

[Person Man]

My interpretation of 2020's surge in turnout is that it suggests a much less stable electorate than we have come to assume.

The INC/BJP-esque dynamic between the Democrats and Republicans hardly suggests that the former are guaranteed a happy electoral future - the relevant ethnic majority here comprises two-thirds of the electorate and is permeable enough to admit many members of other groups - but that's hardly the only salient comparison.

I'm not as familiar with Indian politics, but this post made me curious - is there a similar gender disparity between Indian parties as you see in US politics, and if so, does it vary by region?

The deal with the BJP is that they use the sort of chauvinistic democratic centralism That Republicans do to win and the opposition are basically all those who sustain damages from it.

[gerritcole]

My interpretation of 2020's surge in turnout is that it suggests a much less stable electorate than we have come to assume.

The INC/BJP-esque dynamic between the Democrats and Republicans hardly suggests that the former are guaranteed a happy electoral future - the relevant ethnic majority here comprises two-thirds of the electorate and is permeable enough to admit many members of other groups - but that's hardly the only salient comparison.

I'm not as familiar with Indian politics, but this post made me curious - is there a similar gender disparity between Indian parties as you see in US politics, and if so, does it vary by region?

It's quite difficult to explain the intricacies of Indian politics in a nutshell but in a simplified manner the BJP blends nationalism and religion to appeal to the roughly 80% of the population that is Hindu while the INC, a shell of what it once was, uses dynastic politics and appeals to secularism to appeal to religious minorities (read Muslims), a decent chunk of Hindus and a hodgepodge of other groups. Note that this generalization does not take into consideration caste, north v south divide (BJP has limited inroads in the Dravidian non-Aryan south, language politics (Hindi imposition onto non-Hindi speaking states), the demise of the Left Front, and regional political parties, etc.

Averroes point is that the BJP/GOP appeal to a majority group of the population while the INC/Dems appeal to a collection of various minority groups to form a larger coalition 

[Person Man]

My interpretation of 2020's surge in turnout is that it suggests a much less stable electorate than we have come to assume.

The INC/BJP-esque dynamic between the Democrats and Republicans hardly suggests that the former are guaranteed a happy electoral future - the relevant ethnic majority here comprises two-thirds of the electorate and is permeable enough to admit many members of other groups - but that's hardly the only salient comparison.

I'm not as familiar with Indian politics, but this post made me curious - is there a similar gender disparity between Indian parties as you see in US politics, and if so, does it vary by region?

It's quite difficult to explain the intricacies of Indian politics in a nutshell but in a simplified manner the BJP blends nationalism and religion to appeal to the roughly 80% of the population that is Hindu while the INC, a shell of what it once was, uses dynastic politics and appeals to secularism to appeal to religious minorities (read Muslims), a decent chunk of Hindus and a hodgepodge of other groups. Note that this generalization does not take into consideration caste, north v south divide (BJP has limited inroads in the Dravidian non-Aryan south, language politics (Hindi imposition onto non-Hindi speaking states), the demise of the Left Front, and regional political parties, etc.

Chauvinism against people who aren’t part of it but there are a lot of Tamil people who aren’t BJP or INC. I remember there was once a funeral for this Tamil politician who had been a Bollywood celebrity. My friend who is in Arizona was from Bangalore said it was really dumb. Coworkers in Chennai took time off work for the funeral.