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

[Mister Mets]

Democrats are in a position to dominate politics but they're too willing to go for policies that are unpopular, and give Republicans a chance.

https://jabberwocking.com/if-you-hate-the-culture-wars-blame-liberals/

[Chips]

People were probably asking the same thing in 1881, 1949 and 1989. No matter what happens nowadays, a party will always come back. A party can only be in power so long before Americans get tired and vote for a change in government. That's how it's always been since the 1850's. and is why I think we need more third-party/independents in government.

[pbrower2a]

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

Not quite. The Federalists and Whigs both disappeared, and the surviving Party became too unwieldy to avoid rifting. The Republican Party somehow survived the consequences of the Great Stock Market Crash. It remained largely a regional Party and an outlet for those who had no chance of competing in Democratic Party machines but still thought that they could win on merit. A few such people whom D machines rejected ran on the Republican ticket after winning easily in the primary election and won on their merit in the general election. That was few, but that was enough to keep the GOP intact and relevant.

American politics were unusually placid during American participation in the Second World War, but after the war was over, partisanship would return. The Democratic Party did not splinter, as there was already an alternative.

So let us imagine that we have an election in which these things happen:

1. The Democrats win just everything that Obama won in 2008.
2. The Democrats win everything that Carter won in 1976, reflecting that Carter was able to get the support of enough Southern white voters to win with the African-American vote going as solidly D as it has for a long time.

So a large chunk of the Southern white vote comes to realize that the GOP represents d@mnyankee plutocrats and that Southern white people to a significant extent recognize that they have many of the same problems as Southern blacks and might as well vote for black Democrats who have the interests of poor white people at heart?

3. Trade Arizona and Alaska for Indiana and West Virginia.

With a map like this, Republicans are losing in states in which they have recently counted on winning. It's just that their coalition has largely disintegrated. Such a map looks like FDR vs. Hoover or Reagan vs. Carter. Bad as things were then for the Party that had just gotten clobbered in the Presidential election, things can get even worse as appeals for the recent GOP agenda will become even more irrelevant. There will be even more losses in Congress and in state legislatures. Landslides like those of 1936 and 1984 become possible.

Nobody murdered the Federalists or Whigs. Those two Parties became irrelevant and died. In both cases the Democratic party split.  This time it might be "Social Democrats" and "Christian Democrats" (I use the names of the two largest Parties in Germany, and with a scenario like this some foreign scenario may better fit than any in American history).

Big Tent Parties that still have internal democracy are awkward. Dominant-Party states can co-opt, marginalize, or outlaw opposition. The difference is the character of those who lead the Party. Under a Big Tent Party one has independence from politics if one is a teacher, preacher, government employee, or journalist. In a dominant Party system a connection to the Leading Force is necessary if one is to thrive economically or professionally because the government can decide who gets certain jobs and who can borrow money to save a family farm or get a college education, or have the possibility of entering an apprenticeship program with a politically-compliant trade union. A Party  that has the only possible winners contesting the election in the Primary because there is no meaningful opposition in the general election creates its own political mess.         

         

[TodayJunior]

Even I’m generous enough to give the Gop a couple of decades completely in the wilderness to reinvent themselves in the 2020s and 2030s. But that’s not saying much.

[CEO Mindset]

a one party state would produce too little engagement/culture wars for advertisers to tolerate so never gonna be tolerated by the rich donors

[Telesquare]

The same tired “Demographics are Destiny” garbage.

[GeorgeBFree]

We may already be in one (center left consensus). Republicans for the most part (especially establishment) act like they are the controlled opposition junior party. Conservative movement outside of tax cuts has been inept at any real right wing change (versus just obstructing progressives). On the left, true progessives also pressured to go along with moderate economics in exchange for full embracing of woke social politics.

Anyone to the left of Obama or to the right of Romney gets cut down anytime they are a threat to gain power. Trump was the anomaly and was stymied from day 1 once he got in.

[DS0816]

…

Both the Republicans and Democrats are owned.

That is why.

Oligarchs love the current setup.

[Lechasseur]

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

Not quite. The Federalists and Whigs both disappeared, and the surviving Party became too unwieldy to avoid rifting. The Republican Party somehow survived the consequences of the Great Stock Market Crash. It remained largely a regional Party and an outlet for those who had no chance of competing in Democratic Party machines but still thought that they could win on merit. A few such people whom D machines rejected ran on the Republican ticket after winning easily in the primary election and won on their merit in the general election. That was few, but that was enough to keep the GOP intact and relevant.

American politics were unusually placid during American participation in the Second World War, but after the war was over, partisanship would return. The Democratic Party did not splinter, as there was already an alternative.

So let us imagine that we have an election in which these things happen:

1. The Democrats win just everything that Obama won in 2008.
2. The Democrats win everything that Carter won in 1976, reflecting that Carter was able to get the support of enough Southern white voters to win with the African-American vote going as solidly D as it has for a long time.

So a large chunk of the Southern white vote comes to realize that the GOP represents d@mnyankee plutocrats and that Southern white people to a significant extent recognize that they have many of the same problems as Southern blacks and might as well vote for black Democrats who have the interests of poor white people at heart?

3. Trade Arizona and Alaska for Indiana and West Virginia.

With a map like this, Republicans are losing in states in which they have recently counted on winning. It's just that their coalition has largely disintegrated. Such a map looks like FDR vs. Hoover or Reagan vs. Carter. Bad as things were then for the Party that had just gotten clobbered in the Presidential election, things can get even worse as appeals for the recent GOP agenda will become even more irrelevant. There will be even more losses in Congress and in state legislatures. Landslides like those of 1936 and 1984 become possible.

Nobody murdered the Federalists or Whigs. Those two Parties became irrelevant and died. In both cases the Democratic party split.  This time it might be "Social Democrats" and "Christian Democrats" (I use the names of the two largest Parties in Germany, and with a scenario like this some foreign scenario may better fit than any in American history).

Big Tent Parties that still have internal democracy are awkward. Dominant-Party states can co-opt, marginalize, or outlaw opposition. The difference is the character of those who lead the Party. Under a Big Tent Party one has independence from politics if one is a teacher, preacher, government employee, or journalist. In a dominant Party system a connection to the Leading Force is necessary if one is to thrive economically or professionally because the government can decide who gets certain jobs and who can borrow money to save a family farm or get a college education, or have the possibility of entering an apprenticeship program with a politically-compliant trade union. A Party  that has the only possible winners contesting the election in the Primary because there is no meaningful opposition in the general election creates its own political mess.         

         

Having Social Democrats and Christian Democrats would be much better than having Democrats and Republicans who are both pretty awful.

[Lechasseur]

Democrats are in a position to dominate politics but they're too willing to go for policies that are unpopular, and give Republicans a chance.

https://jabberwocking.com/if-you-hate-the-culture-wars-blame-liberals/

I wouldn't just say too willing, I'd outright say too determined.

And yeah if the Democrats would moderate on the culture wars the GOP would be DOA.

[CEO Mindset]

the democrats are a national party and not some fringe movement getting 1-5% of the vote solely due to the gop's voodoo economics and weirdo jesusy stuff

there's a reason they went so hard on trying to screw trump: he represented the chance of the gop toning down the jesus and libertarianism, so represented a threat

[Devils30]

The American political system has constant churn and movement from one cycle to the next. No one should think of anything as "permanent", states and districts are constantly moving in response to new issues/politicians.

[Roll Roons]

The American political system has constant churn and movement from one cycle to the next. No one should think of anything as "permanent", states and districts are constantly moving in response to new issues/politicians.

Exactly. Change is a constant in politics. In the span of only eight years, GA-06 went from Romney +23 to Biden +12. Miami-Dade County swung 22 points right between 2016 and 2020. These things come out of nowhere and come at you fast.

[Non Swing Voter]

These things go in cycles, yes.  But it's hard to ignore the fact that Dems have won the popular vote in 7 of the last 8 Presidential elections.  And with the current coalitions it's not like Republicans have a decent chance of winning the the popular vote anytime soon (unless they suddenly start improving markedly in California and the Northeast). 

So in that sense we already are a one party dominant state in terms of popular opinion.  The quirks of our democracy just give the minority party a lot of power generally and a lot of power to the GOP in particular because it's strong in a lot of small states with 2 senators each.  That and the GOP has gotten lucky in terms of SCOTUS appointments.  Plus the GOP has been much more aggressive in terms of entrenching its power with gerrymandering.  But that's all covering up an obvious problem that the GOP is not adapting fast enough to a changing electorate. 

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The best thing going for each party is that they have the other party to run against.

[Devils30]

The American political system has constant churn and movement from one cycle to the next. No one should think of anything as "permanent", states and districts are constantly moving in response to new issues/politicians.

Exactly. Change is a constant in politics. In the span of only eight years, GA-06 went from Romney +23 to Biden +12. Miami-Dade County swung 22 points right between 2016 and 2020. These things come out of nowhere and come at you fast.

And if GOP makes more inroads with Latinos it could make NV red despite it looking like a solid blue trending state in the making only 8 years ago. OTOH, GA and NC could both become Dem. Hispanics trending R and suburban whites continuing to move D could make for some fascinating elections in Texas pretty soon.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

We may already be in one (center left consensus). Republicans for the most part (especially establishment) act like they are the controlled opposition junior party. Conservative movement outside of tax cuts has been inept at any real right wing change (versus just obstructing progressives). On the left, true progessives also pressured to go along with moderate economics in exchange for full embracing of woke social politics.

Anyone to the left of Obama or to the right of Romney gets cut down anytime they are a threat to gain power. Trump was the anomaly and was stymied from day 1 once he got in.

Movement conservatism hasn't effected any change outside of tax cuts because it doesn't care to. McConnell had (for example) the numbers to go nuclear on a twenty-week abortion ban during the 2017-2019 trifecta, but just didn't choose to do so. You're being had.

[Alben Barkley]

Except for maybe briefly during the "Era of Good Feelings" in the 1820s, it literally never has been. And considering how extremely polarized it currently is, there doesn't seem to be any readily conceivable way for it to become one now.

[kwabbit]

The last time when America was a one-party state, from 1930 to 1950, was brought on by the most catastrophic incident in American history. We switched from Republican governance to Democratic dominance, almost instantly. The Great Depression was impactful enough to largely reset party coalitions and left the Democrats with one that was much larger than Republicans, with dominance ensuing.

When proponents of a future era of Dem dominance discuss their reasoning, it's always in the style of an 'Emerging Democratic Majority'. This would be a maintenance of Democratic coalition, just with the elements of the Dem coalition becoming a large proportion of the electorate. This is bound to fail because barring some drastic event (COVID could've been but wasn't), the other party will have time to adjust and counter your gains. The 'Emerging Dem Majority' I think has been partially true, it's just been fighting a two-party system's natural inclination to be 50/50. For a long time now the Dem's have been 51% of the electorate and it seems to be stuck that way. If Dem's maintained 70% of Hispanics, 98% of Black Support, 50% College Educated White, and 40% Non-College Educated White, they would be dominating. But that's not the case obviously, losing ground with all those groups except college-educated Whites.

I inputted the 2008 exit poll into the Cook Demographic Swingometer, resulting in a sweeping Biden +8.2 victory. Biden would win Ohio by a point, Florida and Georgia by 6, missing Mississippi by a point. This is what Democrats largely imagined their future would be in 2008, and the idea still remains (such as the popular view that MS could become a Dem state despite GOP trends).

[YE]

Why would it?

[Alben Barkley]

The last time when America was a one-party state, from 1930 to 1950, was brought on by the most catastrophic incident in American history. We switched from Republican governance to Democratic dominance, almost instantly. The Great Depression was impactful enough to largely reset party coalitions and left the Democrats with one that was much larger than Republicans, with dominance ensuing.

When proponents of a future era of Dem dominance discuss their reasoning, it's always in the style of an 'Emerging Democratic Majority'. This would be a maintenance of Democratic coalition, just with the elements of the Dem coalition becoming a large proportion of the electorate. This is bound to fail because barring some drastic event (COVID could've been but wasn't), the other party will have time to adjust and counter your gains. The 'Emerging Dem Majority' I think has been partially true, it's just been fighting a two-party system's natural inclination to be 50/50. For a long time now the Dem's have been 51% of the electorate and it seems to be stuck that way. If Dem's maintained 70% of Hispanics, 98% of Black Support, 50% College Educated White, and 40% Non-College Educated White, they would be dominating. But that's not the case obviously, losing ground with all those groups except college-educated Whites.

I inputted the 2008 exit poll into the Cook Demographic Swingometer, resulting in a sweeping Biden +8.2 victory. Biden would win Ohio by a point, Florida and Georgia by 6, missing Mississippi by a point. This is what Democrats largely imagined their future would be in 2008, and the idea still remains (such as the popular view that MS could become a Dem state despite GOP trends).

I wouldn’t even call the New Deal era a “one party state.” Certainly the Dems were dominant but Republicans remained competitive and influential at most levels of government. I consider it to be as in there is literally no viable party than one, and the last time that happened was the 1820s between the fall of the Federalists and rise of the Whigs.

[OSR stands with Israel]

The last time when America was a one-party state, from 1930 to 1950, was brought on by the most catastrophic incident in American history. We switched from Republican governance to Democratic dominance, almost instantly. The Great Depression was impactful enough to largely reset party coalitions and left the Democrats with one that was much larger than Republicans, with dominance ensuing.

When proponents of a future era of Dem dominance discuss their reasoning, it's always in the style of an 'Emerging Democratic Majority'. This would be a maintenance of Democratic coalition, just with the elements of the Dem coalition becoming a large proportion of the electorate. This is bound to fail because barring some drastic event (COVID could've been but wasn't), the other party will have time to adjust and counter your gains. The 'Emerging Dem Majority' I think has been partially true, it's just been fighting a two-party system's natural inclination to be 50/50. For a long time now the Dem's have been 51% of the electorate and it seems to be stuck that way. If Dem's maintained 70% of Hispanics, 98% of Black Support, 50% College Educated White, and 40% Non-College Educated White, they would be dominating. But that's not the case obviously, losing ground with all those groups except college-educated Whites.

I inputted the 2008 exit poll into the Cook Demographic Swingometer, resulting in a sweeping Biden +8.2 victory. Biden would win Ohio by a point, Florida and Georgia by 6, missing Mississippi by a point. This is what Democrats largely imagined their future would be in 2008, and the idea still remains (such as the popular view that MS could become a Dem state despite GOP trends).

I wouldn’t even call the New Deal era a “one party state.” Certainly the Dems were dominant but Republicans remained competitive and influential at most levels of government. I consider it to be as in there is literally no viable party than one, and the last time that happened was the 1820s between the fall of the Federalists and rise of the Whigs.

I mean Democrats had a trifecta for 26 of those 36 years while Republicans only had one for 2 of those 36 years and that includes a run of 14 straight years of having a trifecta.

[Thank you for being a friend...]

Well I have two theories:

1. The duopoly lasts another 50-100 years and we're stuck with these two parties for a long, long time - certainly all of our lifetimes... so it's cyclical and once voters get tired of Team Blue, they'll want to switch it up with Team Red.  Based on analysis going back to 2004, the youngest half of the electorate leans Democratic, but not in every state and the younger whites in America are not abandoning the Republican Party.  I'd say the USA becomes much more like it was in the 20th century than right now.  Eventually we'll return to the days of some of those big landslides, usually re-elections of popular presidents.  Something the size of Bill Clinton's 1996 re-election is probably most likely to happen at least in the next 40 years or so.  Although you never really know - maybe this Gilded Age will lead to a long string of extremely close nail-biters.  What's interesting too in the two Gilded Ages (late 19th-early 20th) and today is that there is very high voter turnout.

2020 was unbelievable - the highest turnout in a very, very long time.  I mean 2018 was really high, abnormally so, and 2020 was massive.  Wasn't it like the biggest turnout in over 50 or 60 years?  (Gotta geek out again over that data.)

Okay here it is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_presidential_election

HOLY sh**t - the biggest turnout since 1900, which is right smack dab in the middle of the first Gilded Age.

There must be a correlation between widely felt economic stress, quickly emptying pockets, sky-high prices, a Government that is viewed by nearly everyone from their own angles to be in the pockets of some kind of Corrupt Elite, and totally unbalanced wealth distribution by class, and high turnout and very polarizing elections.

2. The other theory is that the duopoly is broken.  Shattered perhaps by a rising third party or maybe we'll have a real chance at electing an independent.  I mean if The Rock or someone likable that had enormous name recognition ran as an indie and the Democratic and Republican candidates sucked bigtime, I think a lot of millennials and iGen/Gen Z voters would go with The Rock, which means that we'd have our first indie President since George Washington (!).

[Matty]

THe biggest argument against a "one party future" is that national conditions and candidate quality continue to determine election outcomes

All those years where one party seemed to dominate (1932-1952, 1968-1992, etc) were in reality just independent elections where one single party was nominating bad candidates and current events benefited one side.

FDR was a transformational figure, once he died, the dems lost whatever large edge they had.

Dems were terrrible between 1968 and 1992 because they nominated bad candidates and they had to deal with another transformational figure in reagan.

Once reagan left, it went right back to being competitive.

[Skill and Chance]

Because it's practically antithetical to American culture.  The only time it came close to happening here was at the global high point of authoritarianism during the Depression, and our elections were still competitive by comparison.  Many democracies around the world ended up turning into dictatorships.