Why don't people here seem to think that future America will become a one party dominant state?

[WindowPhil]

People here generally believe that the GOP will adapt to changing demographics/attitudes and remain a formidable competitor as the years go on.

But in states like California and Hawaii, the GOP is a superminority and shows no signs of moderating or changing its message to adapt to the different demographics and values that the states have than in years past when they were more formidable competitors.

Why is it not a good idea to think that in the future, the Democrats will have a permanent supermajority in the House, Senate, and Presidency? Despite that being what happened in some states. It happened in some states. We're polarized and keep getting more polarized.

[Catalyst138]

This is basically the “Emerging Democratic Majority” theory, which doesn’t have much truth behind it. For every deep-blue state, there’s a deep-red state that has just as much of a supermajority on the other side. Republicans still hold the majority of state legislatures and the Senate is exactly 50-50. The 2020 election has shown that the country becoming more diverse doesn’t necessarily mean more liberal.

Both parties will remain competitive on a nationwide level for the foreseeable future. Polarization works in both directions.

[TodayJunior]

As long as Republicans’ perpetual losses are within 3-5 points, they won’t learn their lessons. It will take several LANDSLIDE defeats before they will be forced to make a change. Think of the Democrats in the 1980s with three blowout defeats in a row. However soon it takes for the gop to realize this is up to them.

[S019]

This is basically the “Emerging Democratic Majority” theory, which doesn’t have much truth behind it. For every deep-blue state, there’s a deep-red state that has just as much of a supermajority on the other side. Republicans still hold the majority of state legislatures and the Senate is exactly 50-50. The 2020 election has shown that the country becoming more diverse doesn’t necessarily mean more liberal.

Both parties will remain competitive on a nationwide level for the foreseeable future. Polarization works in both directions.

Yeah this, and even if Democrats manage to secure solid electoral college majorities, as long as they need swing states to hold a Senate majority, Republicans will have a good shot at winning the Senate. (for instance even if Democrats manage to solidify AZ, GA, NV, and turn TX blue, if they lose all of the Senate seats in the Midwest, the Republicans would probably hold the Senate)

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

America being 50-50 for decades into the future sounds awfully unlikely, though obviously still possible. The US had had dominant-party systems before, and it will have them again. The Dems had such a preponderence in the years of the New Deal Coalition, the Republicans had such a preponderence on presidential level in the Reagan Era and on downballot during the Bush and Clinton presidencies. Surely Democrats can gain a strong foothold in at least some levels over the course of the coming decade.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Much of the reason why the California GOP is in such bad shape is due to how the national GOP has been since 2000 and the California GOP really doesnt have much control over that

[Non Swing Voter]

The reason the GOP controls many state legislatures = persistent gerrymandering.  Courts just say, well if you don't like it vote them out.  Well gee, maybe you can't if they just keep gerrymandering themselves in.

The reason the GOP has 50 senate seats is because a bunch of rural states that contribute almost nothing to the national GDP like say Montana, South Dakota, North Dakota, Wyoming, and Idaho get 2 senators each. 

The reason the GOP gets away with a lot of these atrocities is because they used the above leverage to put a bunch of unqualified hacks on Federal and State Courts.  This is essentially their long term strategy as they refuse to adapt and keep losing the popular vote over and over.  What would really end their ability to stay competitive would be fore a few more Southern states to flip the way Virginia did.  Then they won't have a lock on the senate.  Georgia and North Carolina seem like the best hope.

[Samof94]

As long as Republicans’ perpetual losses are within 3-5 points, they won’t learn their lessons. It will take several LANDSLIDE defeats before they will be forced to make a change. Think of the Democrats in the 1980s with three blowout defeats in a row. However soon it takes for the gop to realize this is up to them.

What if there is a future election where the largest state the GOP wins is Tennessee?

[TodayJunior]

As long as Republicans’ perpetual losses are within 3-5 points, they won’t learn their lessons. It will take several LANDSLIDE defeats before they will be forced to make a change. Think of the Democrats in the 1980s with three blowout defeats in a row. However soon it takes for the gop to realize this is up to them.

What if there is a future election where the largest state the GOP wins is Tennessee?

Quite possible, and that’s a case where they’re getting blown out 400+ EV and 10%+ in the popular vote. Hope it happens soon enough and it could be as early as 2024. When they finally lose Texas, they’ll have to come to terms with their approach to the general electorate.

[Samof94]

As long as Republicans’ perpetual losses are within 3-5 points, they won’t learn their lessons. It will take several LANDSLIDE defeats before they will be forced to make a change. Think of the Democrats in the 1980s with three blowout defeats in a row. However soon it takes for the gop to realize this is up to them.

What if there is a future election where the largest state the GOP wins is Tennessee?

Quite possible, and that’s a case where they’re getting blown out 400+ EV and 10%+ in the popular vote. Hope it happens soon enough and it could be as early as 2024. When they finally lose Texas, they’ll have to come to terms with their approach to the general electorate.

They’ll just say it was fraud and caused by illegal immigrants.

[TodayJunior]

As long as Republicans’ perpetual losses are within 3-5 points, they won’t learn their lessons. It will take several LANDSLIDE defeats before they will be forced to make a change. Think of the Democrats in the 1980s with three blowout defeats in a row. However soon it takes for the gop to realize this is up to them.

What if there is a future election where the largest state the GOP wins is Tennessee?

Quite possible, and that’s a case where they’re getting blown out 400+ EV and 10%+ in the popular vote. Hope it happens soon enough and it could be as early as 2024. When they finally lose Texas, they’ll have to come to terms with their approach to the general electorate.

They’ll just say it was fraud and caused by illegal immigrants.

Sad and pathetic. They might as well just disband as an organization if they’re really going to go that route.

[Samof94]

As long as Republicans’ perpetual losses are within 3-5 points, they won’t learn their lessons. It will take several LANDSLIDE defeats before they will be forced to make a change. Think of the Democrats in the 1980s with three blowout defeats in a row. However soon it takes for the gop to realize this is up to them.

What if there is a future election where the largest state the GOP wins is Tennessee?

Quite possible, and that’s a case where they’re getting blown out 400+ EV and 10%+ in the popular vote. Hope it happens soon enough and it could be as early as 2024. When they finally lose Texas, they’ll have to come to terms with their approach to the general electorate.

They’ll just say it was fraud and caused by illegal immigrants.

Sad and pathetic. They might as well just disband as an organization if they’re really going to go that route.

If MTG is the kind of GOP member that gets elected, then I don’t see much hope.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

We are in a Democratic Secular D's and it was forthcoming anyways just like British were gonna be one

The only reason why we werent a one party system was because Russia and KGB interfered in the sixties with Assassinations of our Civil Rights leaders and again with Trump

Since we are divided Blue v Red it's the same divide in Secular v Traditionalists with Secular Democracy and Red Communists

That's why since Cold War Eastern Europe have been our adversary

That's why Rs have won lost 16/20 Natl Elections bur their saving grace was state Legislatures and the House, they have won in return 16/20 and the Crt handed Bush W the Election in 2ooo

The Rs have no standing to dictate to Ds like they did in 2000 if we lose again in that fashion to concede after what Trump did

The D's had a D FL Supreme Crt, we could have audited the votes had we known

[Person Man]

My guess is that Republicans will start to adapt as an ultimate last resort. It probably won’t happen until and unless Texas actually falls.

[Suburban Republican]

Doubling down on minorities and college educated whites has helped Democrats increase their share of nationwide support, but nationwide demographics are not the same as state demographics. That increase in support has mostly been concentrated in highly educated and/or nonwhite states that are already blue (California, New York, etc.). In addition to this, Republicans have doubled down on non-college educated whites/rural voters; a demographic that is declining but nonetheless hold disproportionate electoral power. This is why, despite democrats having won the popular vote in every presidential election in the past 30 years (with the exception of 2004), Republicans hold a 2-point advantage in the electoral college, 3-4 point advantage in the electoral college, and 5-6 point advantage in the senate.

This advantage will probably grow for republicans until they max out their support among non-college educated/rural whites (which could be decades away). But waiting for republicans to max out their support among these voters isn’t an option. Having one party relying solely on a shrinking, economically hard-hit demographic is a bad thing for our democracy. Those people are more sympathetic to nationalist ideologies and conspiratorial thinking and as this leaves the door open for actors with bad intentions to enter the political mainstream and do real damage to democratic institutions/norms that have been around for hundreds of years.

[David Hume]

America being 50-50 for decades into the future sounds awfully unlikely, though obviously still possible. The US had had dominant-party systems before, and it will have them again. The Dems had such a preponderence in the years of the New Deal Coalition, the Republicans had such a preponderence on presidential level in the Reagan Era and on downballot during the Bush and Clinton presidencies. Surely Democrats can gain a strong foothold in at least some levels over the course of the coming decade.

The power structure currently benefits R coalition, just as it used to benefit D coalition before. Since the polarization are likely to continue, due to selfpack, even without aggressive R gerrymander, it's more likely for R to win the house in the long run. It's even worse in state legislature for D.

For senate, it's more likely for R to win back WV, MT, OH in the near future. Currently D hold one seat in PA, WI and ME, and two in MI, MN, NH. All these states are likely to trend R, so it's more likely for R to gain seats in this group. The trend in NV and NC are not clear. Since each of R and D control two seats, I will assume this group continue to even out. D also hold both seats in AZ and GA. R might be able to get back one seat, but I will assume they don't. Hence, in the short term, the senate is likely to evolve to 55-45.

Finally, at the presidential level, it depends on the speed of TX turing blue versus rust belt turning red. The current R coalition is disadvantaged in the long term. But in the short an mid term, it is not clear yet.

Hence, in the 2020s, D dominance is not likely. And not likely in 2030s as well if the current polarization continues.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

America being 50-50 for decades into the future sounds awfully unlikely, though obviously still possible. The US had had dominant-party systems before, and it will have them again. The Dems had such a preponderence in the years of the New Deal Coalition, the Republicans had such a preponderence on presidential level in the Reagan Era and on downballot during the Bush and Clinton presidencies. Surely Democrats can gain a strong foothold in at least some levels over the course of the coming decade.

The power structure currently benefits R coalition, just as it used to benefit D coalition before. Since the polarization are likely to continue, due to selfpack, even without aggressive R gerrymander, it's more likely for R to win the house in the long run. It's even worse in state legislature for D.

For senate, it's more likely for R to win back WV, MT, OH in the near future. Currently D hold one seat in PA, WI and ME, and two in MI, MN, NH. All these states are likely to trend R, so it's more likely for R to gain seats in this group. The trend in NV and NC are not clear. Since each of R and D control two seats, I will assume this group continue to even out. D also hold both seats in AZ and GA. R might be able to get back one seat, but I will assume they don't. Hence, in the short term, the senate is likely to evolve to 55-45.

Finally, at the presidential level, it depends on the speed of TX turing blue versus rust belt turning red. The current R coalition is disadvantaged in the long term. But in the short an mid term, it is not clear yet.

Hence, in the 2020s, D dominance is not likely. And not likely in 2030s as well if the current polarization continues.

A trend in relative terms does not equal a swing in absolute ones, and if America is 55-45 10 years from now, Ds still look likely to win Senate seats in those big and mid-size states that are fulcrum to Senate control.
Your post here only really has valid assumptions in case of roughly 50/50 division for the next two decades or so, which I don't really think is the likeliest thing to happen. So it only telegraphs the path of least resistance to Rs having institutional power equal to Ds - not some absolute reality.

[David Hume]

America being 50-50 for decades into the future sounds awfully unlikely, though obviously still possible. The US had had dominant-party systems before, and it will have them again. The Dems had such a preponderence in the years of the New Deal Coalition, the Republicans had such a preponderence on presidential level in the Reagan Era and on downballot during the Bush and Clinton presidencies. Surely Democrats can gain a strong foothold in at least some levels over the course of the coming decade.

The power structure currently benefits R coalition, just as it used to benefit D coalition before. Since the polarization are likely to continue, due to selfpack, even without aggressive R gerrymander, it's more likely for R to win the house in the long run. It's even worse in state legislature for D.

For senate, it's more likely for R to win back WV, MT, OH in the near future. Currently D hold one seat in PA, WI and ME, and two in MI, MN, NH. All these states are likely to trend R, so it's more likely for R to gain seats in this group. The trend in NV and NC are not clear. Since each of R and D control two seats, I will assume this group continue to even out. D also hold both seats in AZ and GA. R might be able to get back one seat, but I will assume they don't. Hence, in the short term, the senate is likely to evolve to 55-45.

Finally, at the presidential level, it depends on the speed of TX turing blue versus rust belt turning red. The current R coalition is disadvantaged in the long term. But in the short an mid term, it is not clear yet.

Hence, in the 2020s, D dominance is not likely. And not likely in 2030s as well if the current polarization continues.

A trend in relative terms does not equal a swing in absolute ones, and if America is 55-45 10 years from now, Ds still look likely to win Senate seats in those big and mid-size states that are fulcrum to Senate control.
Your post here only really has valid assumptions in case of roughly 50/50 division for the next two decades or so, which I don't really think is the likeliest thing to happen. So it only telegraphs the path of least resistance to Rs having institutional power equal to Ds - not some absolute reality.

Did not get your points. What I am describing is the average or equilibrium situation. D may control the senate in the 20s and 30s occasionally, but their odds are not great. I can bet with you that they will control the senate less than half the time for coming decade.

In sum, D is likely to have advantage on presidential level, but R will have an edge in the senate and house, and huge advantage in state legislatures.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

America being 50-50 for decades into the future sounds awfully unlikely, though obviously still possible. The US had had dominant-party systems before, and it will have them again. The Dems had such a preponderence in the years of the New Deal Coalition, the Republicans had such a preponderence on presidential level in the Reagan Era and on downballot during the Bush and Clinton presidencies. Surely Democrats can gain a strong foothold in at least some levels over the course of the coming decade.

The power structure currently benefits R coalition, just as it used to benefit D coalition before. Since the polarization are likely to continue, due to selfpack, even without aggressive R gerrymander, it's more likely for R to win the house in the long run. It's even worse in state legislature for D.

For senate, it's more likely for R to win back WV, MT, OH in the near future. Currently D hold one seat in PA, WI and ME, and two in MI, MN, NH. All these states are likely to trend R, so it's more likely for R to gain seats in this group. The trend in NV and NC are not clear. Since each of R and D control two seats, I will assume this group continue to even out. D also hold both seats in AZ and GA. R might be able to get back one seat, but I will assume they don't. Hence, in the short term, the senate is likely to evolve to 55-45.

Finally, at the presidential level, it depends on the speed of TX turing blue versus rust belt turning red. The current R coalition is disadvantaged in the long term. But in the short an mid term, it is not clear yet.

Hence, in the 2020s, D dominance is not likely. And not likely in 2030s as well if the current polarization continues.

A trend in relative terms does not equal a swing in absolute ones, and if America is 55-45 10 years from now, Ds still look likely to win Senate seats in those big and mid-size states that are fulcrum to Senate control.
Your post here only really has valid assumptions in case of roughly 50/50 division for the next two decades or so, which I don't really think is the likeliest thing to happen. So it only telegraphs the path of least resistance to Rs having institutional power equal to Ds - not some absolute reality.

Did not get your points. What I am describing is the average or equilibrium situation. D may control the senate in the 20s and 30s occasionally, but their odds are not great. I can bet with you that they will control the senate less than half the time for coming decade.

In sum, D is likely to have advantage on presidential level, but R will have an edge in the senate and house, and huge advantage in state legislatures.

We're kind of talking past each other and kind of complimenting our talk points. I regret the former in retrospect.

[Redban]

History - the losing party has always adapted, time and time again. When has America been a one-party dominant state?

[Roll Roons]

History - the losing party has always adapted, time and time again. When has America been a one-party dominant state?

Democrats had a near lock on Congress between 1932 and 1980 and held the White House for all but 16 of those years.

But yes, they do adapt. In 1952, the GOP won in part because they turned to an outsider who happened to be one of the most revered men in the country.

[Non Swing Voter]

History - the losing party has always adapted, time and time again. When has America been a one-party dominant state?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whig_Party_(United_States)#Collapse,_1853–1856

[Mister Mets]

The GOP had the White House last year, and Trump lost a close election.

So we haven't seen much evidence of it yet.

The collapse of the Republicans in California also corresponded with a nationalization of politics, which makes it harder for candidates to be moderates, but also means that both parties are worried about what works nationally.

[Mister Mets]

History - the losing party has always adapted, time and time again. When has America been a one-party dominant state?

This is messy. From 1861-1932, Democrats had two Presidents. Granted, Republicans prevailed in close elections in 1876, 1880, and 1888. But Democrats suffered some blowout losses, including a string post-Wilson.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Both parties are too easy to run against for that to happen.