If Republicans lose the next three presidential elections, where does the party go from there?

[Ferguson97]

Let's say that Republicans lose the next three presidential elections. Biden wins re-election, and then Kamala Harris wins two terms for herself in 2028 and 2032.

Where does the Republican Party go from there? Do they make a major ideological shift?

Suppose these are the tickets and results)

2024: Donald Trump/Kari Lake (Biden flips North Carolina, Alaska, and Texas; popular vote D+7)
2028: Ron DeSantis/Tim Scott (Harris wins Biden's 2020 map, minus Nevada; popular vote D+2)
2032: Daniel Cameron/Lee Zeldin (Harris wins Biden's 2024 map, plus Florida; popular vote D+5)

Does the moderate wing of the party take over?

[Kamala's side hoe]

I love how this K-Hive fanfic Dem dominance timeline would trigger most of the D-avatars here. Since Daniel Cameron is the 2032 nominee I’ll entertain the idea of R tickets having a 15% floor with black voters even with one-sidedly strong D turnout as your 2032 map suggests, and many America First GOPers supporting reparations for slavery. Honestly we have no idea how the parties would shift and what ”moderate” Republicans would look like in 10 years.

[Epaminondas]

Unlikely scenario in the best of cases, but a complete delusion to imagine Harris winning after Biden.

After 2016 and proof that Democrats will stay home if they are repelled by the top of the ticket, you still want to run the most dislikeable politician since Hillary?

Blackmailing progressive voters didn't work then, and it won't work in 2028.

[Ferguson97]

Unlikely scenario in the best of cases, but a complete delusion to imagine Harris winning after Biden.

After 2016 and proof that Democrats will stay home if they are repelled by the top of the ticket, you still want to run the most dislikeable politician since Hillary?

Blackmailing progressive voters didn't work then, and it won't work in 2028.

If you're to the left of Kamala Harris, you are not a viable voting bloc. This is maybe 1-2% of voters.

[Vosem]

Depends on what else is happening. I think it will be true for the foreseeable future that Democrats will be advantaged in presidential elections (although I doubt they'll win the next three consecutive ones), while Republicans will be advantaged in congressional elections (to the point that these numbers are perfectly compatible with controlling the Senate the entire time).

I guess if there is a very long string of presidential defeats, the New Deal precedent is that the party does eventually moderate, but it takes longer than this and in the New Deal the GOP couldn't consistently manage strong midterm performances (they declared victory in 1938, but this was sort of like Ds in 2022 in that they merely exceeded expectations; won the PV but still lost overall in 1942; had an actual win in 1946; then hugely underran expectations in 1950).

Even then, one wonders how the country would've been different if Taft had been elected in 1952. The GOP moderating at that point was a close-run thing and wholly dependent on Eisenhower's specific candidacy. If they have a grip on Senate control, then maybe they just hold it forever, and wait until the odd presidential win to pack the judiciary.

[Skill and Chance]

Depends on what else is happening. I think it will be true for the foreseeable future that Democrats will be advantaged in presidential elections (although I doubt they'll win the next three consecutive ones), while Republicans will be advantaged in congressional elections (to the point that these numbers are perfectly compatible with controlling the Senate the entire time).

I guess if there is a very long string of presidential defeats, the New Deal precedent is that the party does eventually moderate, but it takes longer than this and in the New Deal the GOP couldn't consistently manage strong midterm performances (they declared victory in 1938, but this was sort of like Ds in 2022 in that they merely exceeded expectations; won the PV but still lost overall in 1942; had an actual win in 1946; then hugely underran expectations in 1950).

Even then, one wonders how the country would've been different if Taft had been elected in 1952. The GOP moderating at that point was a close-run thing and wholly dependent on Eisenhower's specific candidacy. If they have a grip on Senate control, then maybe they just hold it forever, and wait until the odd presidential win to pack the judiciary.

It depends on what you mean by moderation, but this seems correct to me.  There's moderation where they go libertarian on some pre-2015 social issues and mostly leave Obamacare alone, which is somewhat happening already and would be very likely if they lose again in 2024.  That would be about equivalent to Bill Clinton's 1992 campaign. 

However, to get a Hogan/Baker/Scott level of moderation where the presidential nominee basically just accepts all Dem driven policy changes from the past 20 years as a given, they would likely have to be dragged there kicking and screaming by a supermajority Dem congress and the Trump appointees being the only conservatives left on SCOTUS in the process.  That would be the equivalent of Eisenhower.

[pbrower2a]

Hoping that the Democrats can rift in time for the GOP to remain relevant. I see this: Democrats are adopting and adapting many of the virtues that Republicans used to drub Democrats on. Democrats are winning over the upper echelons of just about every minority group by appealing to disparate traditions. Tradition is a conservative value. Democrats have abandoned any appearance of being soft on crime; they have learned that crime is simply a perverse choice linked to bad behavior and not some consequence of poverty and "oppression". Plenty of poor people are responsible people, and Democrats want to cultivate such responsibility. Bill Clinton and Barack Obama exemplify Realpolitik that they lifted from the elder Bush.

Republicans have scrapped small government in favor of crony capitalism in economics and sexual repression.That was a bad idea. Democrats already went after sexually-charged crimes such as child molestation, spouse abuse, and homophobic violence.

If I see the GOP going the way of the Federalists and Whigs then we will see a split within the Democratic Party, perhaps into something like Christian Democrats and Social Democrats.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

We are going for DC Statehood anyways in 24 but taxes have to be raised on the wealthy because SSA is going broke in 9 yrs

The tax cut idea of RS are unattainable

[MABA 2020]

It's hard to imagine the GOP moderating no matter how many elections they lose, when every other incentive is pushing them rightward. Especially if they are able to hold a permeant majority in the senate, I can see them just riding out the loses in their alternative bubble.

[WalterWhite]

Depends on what else is happening. I think it will be true for the foreseeable future that Democrats will be advantaged in presidential elections (although I doubt they'll win the next three consecutive ones), while Republicans will be advantaged in congressional elections (to the point that these numbers are perfectly compatible with controlling the Senate the entire time).

I guess if there is a very long string of presidential defeats, the New Deal precedent is that the party does eventually moderate, but it takes longer than this and in the New Deal the GOP couldn't consistently manage strong midterm performances (they declared victory in 1938, but this was sort of like Ds in 2022 in that they merely exceeded expectations; won the PV but still lost overall in 1942; had an actual win in 1946; then hugely underran expectations in 1950).

Even then, one wonders how the country would've been different if Taft had been elected in 1952. The GOP moderating at that point was a close-run thing and wholly dependent on Eisenhower's specific candidacy. If they have a grip on Senate control, then maybe they just hold it forever, and wait until the odd presidential win to pack the judiciary.

I doubt the Republican Party will be advantaged in congressional elections even with a string of Democratic presidents if the GOP does not moderate. The 2022 midterm elections proved that even with a historically unpopular Democratic presidency, the social issues the Republican Party currently supports are too unpopular for them to score major wins in the House and Senate. The fact that the 2018 midterm elections had a D+8.6% popular vote and that the 2022 midterm elections had an R+2.8% popular vote (even though both Trump and Biden had similar net approval ratings) is revealing in itself. Because of the social messaging of the Republicans, Democrats carry an inherit advantage in congressional and presidential elections; other factors could definitely neutralize that advantage, but such an advantage would always be present for the Democratic Party unless the GOP moderates its positions on issues.

[Agonized-Statism]

Blackmailing progressive voters didn't work then, and it won't work in 2028.

I would agree, but progressives haven't shown much of a spine when browbeaten before, and Warren's more collaborative approach seems to be favored. 2028 being another 2016 is certainly a possibility with how '22 and '24 will swell establishment ego and how much astroturfing it's looking like their bench then will need, but I think it would take the "our democracy™ is at stake" melodrama (i.e. Trump) disappearing first.

It's also worth considering that Republicans might be so out-of-touch and damaged by their own infighting at that point that a Democrat could still win with some kind of progressive walkout (or establishment disowning of a progressive ticket for that matter).

[TodayJunior]

Unlikely scenario in the best of cases, but a complete delusion to imagine Harris winning after Biden.

After 2016 and proof that Democrats will stay home if they are repelled by the top of the ticket, you still want to run the most dislikeable politician since Hillary?

Blackmailing progressive voters didn't work then, and it won't work in 2028.

Dems are never staying home in any election ever again. Not when the alternative is the current GOP and Trump. Dems are basically incapable of losing a national election no matter how hard they try. Kamala Harris would beat Trump, no matter how unpopular she may be.

[Epaminondas]

Dems are never staying home in any election ever again. Not when the alternative is the current GOP and Trump. Dems are basically incapable of losing a national election no matter how hard they try. Kamala Harris would beat Trump, no matter how unpopular she may be.

I figure you must be pulling my leg, since the above sounds too much like the Permanent Majority claptrap of 2009 to be a coincidence.
Sure they will in certain circumstances, when the GOP fire up their suppression media empire and the Dem candidate is unappealing. Dems stayed home in WISC 2019, 2021 gubernatorials, and arguably in the big 4 states in 2022.

Do you not remember how much of a nail biter 2020 was?

[TodayJunior]

Dems are never staying home in any election ever again. Not when the alternative is the current GOP and Trump. Dems are basically incapable of losing a national election no matter how hard they try. Kamala Harris would beat Trump, no matter how unpopular she may be.

I figure you must be pulling my leg, since the above sounds too much like the Permanent Majority claptrap of 2009 to be a coincidence.
Sure they will in certain circumstances, when the GOP fire up their suppression media empire and the Dem candidate is unappealing. Dems stayed home in WISC 2019, 2021 gubernatorials, and arguably in the big 4 states in 2022.

Do you not remember how much of a nail biter 2020 was?

No I am not pulling your leg. The reason I know they will never lack in turnout is due to a few factors that light a fire under every Democrat and Dem-leaning independent, or anti-gop voter (there are just more of them);

1. Covid changed the voting process forever and the gop continues to fight it
2. Dobbs decision
3. Candidate quality - Dems are better at vetting. They just don’t allow extreme candidates to get through a primary.
4. Mark Elias- there is no such equivalent in the Republican  side to outwork outmaneuver the courts (see Wisconsin)  
5. The gop is lazy and they just expect circumstances to do the work for them.
6. Gen z is voting Democrat at record numbers while boomers are dying off .
7. Donald J trump himself. That should be good for the next few cycles

There ya go! 7 reasons the gop can’t win.!

[Arizona Iced Tea]

Wouldn't people eventually get sick after 8 if not 12 years of a Dem president?

[Vosem]

Depends on what else is happening. I think it will be true for the foreseeable future that Democrats will be advantaged in presidential elections (although I doubt they'll win the next three consecutive ones), while Republicans will be advantaged in congressional elections (to the point that these numbers are perfectly compatible with controlling the Senate the entire time).

I guess if there is a very long string of presidential defeats, the New Deal precedent is that the party does eventually moderate, but it takes longer than this and in the New Deal the GOP couldn't consistently manage strong midterm performances (they declared victory in 1938, but this was sort of like Ds in 2022 in that they merely exceeded expectations; won the PV but still lost overall in 1942; had an actual win in 1946; then hugely underran expectations in 1950).

Even then, one wonders how the country would've been different if Taft had been elected in 1952. The GOP moderating at that point was a close-run thing and wholly dependent on Eisenhower's specific candidacy. If they have a grip on Senate control, then maybe they just hold it forever, and wait until the odd presidential win to pack the judiciary.

I doubt the Republican Party will be advantaged in congressional elections even with a string of Democratic presidents if the GOP does not moderate. The 2022 midterm elections proved that even with a historically unpopular Democratic presidency, the social issues the Republican Party currently supports are too unpopular for them to score major wins in the House and Senate. The fact that the 2018 midterm elections had a D+8.6% popular vote and that the 2022 midterm elections had an R+2.8% popular vote (even though both Trump and Biden had similar net approval ratings) is revealing in itself. Because of the social messaging of the Republicans, Democrats carry an inherit advantage in congressional and presidential elections; other factors could definitely neutralize that advantage, but such an advantage would always be present for the Democratic Party unless the GOP moderates its positions on issues.

I'm not sure this really follows. Democratic majorities in the Senate are buoyed by holding a number of seats in red states that they're likely to lose in 2024, and general good luck with special elections in 2020. Except for 2022, Republicans have pretty consistently not needed to win the PV at all to win the House (and if you impute numbers into uncontested races this is probably still true in 2022); but in fact they still can win the popular vote (as they did in 2022, even if you impute numbers into uncontested races) without any moderation at all; their current set of policies are basically 'electable'. I don't think Democratic Senate majorities are going to be likely moving forward absent 2-out-of-3 cycles being stronger-than-2020 wins (though they wouldn't have to be as strong as 2018); this strikes me as very unlikely, and the sort of thing that either party only experiences once every 40 years or so.

2022 also had very strong regional heterogeneity and I don't think it works to show that Republicans can't win nationally; they had multiple state-level performances corresponding to national landslides. I think acting like 2022 was a Democratic victory at all is going to lead Democrats into pretty bad miscalculations, much as the GOP acting like 2016 was a Republican victory led them into bad miscalculations. (That said as things like the WI races showed the GOP really can't win on abortion, and in referendums it's rare for places that are less than >65% Republican to be pro-life. But I'd be surprised if there were a national election at which this issue was more of a stumbling block than it was in 2022.)

[WalterWhite]

Depends on what else is happening. I think it will be true for the foreseeable future that Democrats will be advantaged in presidential elections (although I doubt they'll win the next three consecutive ones), while Republicans will be advantaged in congressional elections (to the point that these numbers are perfectly compatible with controlling the Senate the entire time).

I guess if there is a very long string of presidential defeats, the New Deal precedent is that the party does eventually moderate, but it takes longer than this and in the New Deal the GOP couldn't consistently manage strong midterm performances (they declared victory in 1938, but this was sort of like Ds in 2022 in that they merely exceeded expectations; won the PV but still lost overall in 1942; had an actual win in 1946; then hugely underran expectations in 1950).

Even then, one wonders how the country would've been different if Taft had been elected in 1952. The GOP moderating at that point was a close-run thing and wholly dependent on Eisenhower's specific candidacy. If they have a grip on Senate control, then maybe they just hold it forever, and wait until the odd presidential win to pack the judiciary.

I doubt the Republican Party will be advantaged in congressional elections even with a string of Democratic presidents if the GOP does not moderate. The 2022 midterm elections proved that even with a historically unpopular Democratic presidency, the social issues the Republican Party currently supports are too unpopular for them to score major wins in the House and Senate. The fact that the 2018 midterm elections had a D+8.6% popular vote and that the 2022 midterm elections had an R+2.8% popular vote (even though both Trump and Biden had similar net approval ratings) is revealing in itself. Because of the social messaging of the Republicans, Democrats carry an inherit advantage in congressional and presidential elections; other factors could definitely neutralize that advantage, but such an advantage would always be present for the Democratic Party unless the GOP moderates its positions on issues.

I'm not sure this really follows. Democratic majorities in the Senate are buoyed by holding a number of seats in red states that they're likely to lose in 2024, and general good luck with special elections in 2020. Except for 2022, Republicans have pretty consistently not needed to win the PV at all to win the House (and if you impute numbers into uncontested races this is probably still true in 2022); but in fact they still can win the popular vote (as they did in 2022, even if you impute numbers into uncontested races) without any moderation at all; their current set of policies are basically 'electable'. I don't think Democratic Senate majorities are going to be likely moving forward absent 2-out-of-3 cycles being stronger-than-2020 wins (though they wouldn't have to be as strong as 2018); this strikes me as very unlikely, and the sort of thing that either party only experiences once every 40 years or so.

2022 also had very strong regional heterogeneity and I don't think it works to show that Republicans can't win nationally; they had multiple state-level performances corresponding to national landslides. I think acting like 2022 was a Democratic victory at all is going to lead Democrats into pretty bad miscalculations, much as the GOP acting like 2016 was a Republican victory led them into bad miscalculations. (That said as things like the WI races showed the GOP really can't win on abortion, and in referendums it's rare for places that are less than >65% Republican to be pro-life. But I'd be surprised if there were a national election at which this issue was more of a stumbling block than it was in 2022.)

There are only two Senate Democrats in solidly Republican states: Joe Machin and Jon Tester. A Democratic Senate victory is definitely not out of the picture in the future if the Democrats gain a seat in another state. Also, House wins larger than 2020 are not uncommon in the slightest; the Democratic Party only won the House popular vote by 3.1% in 2020, which is historically a very small margin. This century, 2002, 2006, 2008, 2010, 2014, and 2018 had larger House popular vote margins (in either direction) than 2020.

[EastwoodS]

Depends on what else is happening. I think it will be true for the foreseeable future that Democrats will be advantaged in presidential elections (although I doubt they'll win the next three consecutive ones), while Republicans will be advantaged in congressional elections (to the point that these numbers are perfectly compatible with controlling the Senate the entire time).

I guess if there is a very long string of presidential defeats, the New Deal precedent is that the party does eventually moderate, but it takes longer than this and in the New Deal the GOP couldn't consistently manage strong midterm performances (they declared victory in 1938, but this was sort of like Ds in 2022 in that they merely exceeded expectations; won the PV but still lost overall in 1942; had an actual win in 1946; then hugely underran expectations in 1950).

Even then, one wonders how the country would've been different if Taft had been elected in 1952. The GOP moderating at that point was a close-run thing and wholly dependent on Eisenhower's specific candidacy. If they have a grip on Senate control, then maybe they just hold it forever, and wait until the odd presidential win to pack the judiciary.

if Democrats stayed favored in presidential elections, it will be the longest pro-democratic electorate since 1932-1968. considering Democrats have been advantaged in the electoral college since the 1990s.

[TodayJunior]

Wouldn't people eventually get sick after 8 if not 12 years of a Dem president?

That's definitely the wrong approach. Pres elections are generally a choice. You can't just hope people get tired of the party in power if the GOP isn't offering anything palatable. People don't vote for change just for the sake of change. Otherwise, 2022 would have a red tsunami.

[DS0816]

Let's say that Republicans lose the next three presidential elections.…

…

The Republicans will not lose, and the Democrats will not win, all of the next three U.S. presidential elections of 2024, 2028, and 2032.

More times than not…a party’s attempt to win a third consecutive election—whether or not they prevail—results in an underperformance of their second-cycle outcome.

I don’t consider the Democrats dominant to a point where they are going to go from 25 states (in 2020) to, say, 26 states (in 2024), and then down to 24 or 25 states (in 2028) and—with just managing to reach their usual tipping point—23 states (in 2032).

[TodayJunior]

Let's say that Republicans lose the next three presidential elections.…

…

The Republicans will not lose, and the Democrats will not win, all of the next three U.S. presidential elections of 2024, 2028, and 2032.

More times than not…a party’s attempt to win a third consecutive election—whether or not they prevail—results in an underperformance of their second-cycle outcome.

I don’t consider the Democrats dominant to a point where they are going to go from 25 states (in 2020) to, say, 26 states (in 2024), and then down to 24 or 25 states (in 2028) and—with just managing to reach their usual tipping point—23 states (in 2032).

Dems won five straight elections 1932,36,40,44,48, so it could definitely happen where the gop implodes and cannot recover if/until 2040. Wouldn’t put it past them. A lot of the gop base is already demoralized and black pilled anyway,

[pbrower2a]

Wouldn't people eventually get sick after 8 if not 12 years of a Dem president?

More likely:

1. The Democrats get unresponsive or corrupt. Entrenched machines do that.
2. Factions arise within the Democratic Party based on, for example, ethnicity; one faction goes R.
3. The Democrats become an exclusive club and shut out talented people. The GOP is then open.