What party is likely to die out?

[Joe Biden is your president. Deal with it.]

?

[5280]

I think both parties should die out and we have no parties. 

On a serious note, both of them are not going away anytime soon.

[MrMittens]

Actually the Democrats, since they're straddling the spectrum from centre-right to far-left and could concievably split.

[Right to Life]

Actually the Democrats, since they're straddling the spectrum from centre-right to far-left and could concievably split.

[MrMittens]

Actually the Democrats, since they're straddling the spectrum from centre-right to far-left and could concievably split.

So basically, if (since) the Republicans made the Party into a far-right, plutocratic organization, it would be healthy for their survival?

Of course not, but a more united party is always more likely to survive.

[Mechaman]

Oh god, this question again?

Look folks, both of these parties have been around for more than a century and a half and have survived massive calamities MUCH worse than anything that's been happening for the past twenty years.  Both the Democrats and the Republicans had AMPLE opportunity to die off, to kick the metaphorical bucket.  Hell:

Democrats could've died off in:

The Late 1860's: Post Civil War
The Mid 1890's: The Panic of 1893
The Early 1920's: The Election of 1920

Republicans could've died off in:

The Early 1890's: The Panic of 1890
The Early-Mid 1910's: The Progressive Split
The F***in 1930's: Great Depression
And if I'm feeling really liberal with the usage here:
Mid-Late 1970's: Watergate

Yet, both parties have survived to this date through events that normally would've been more than enough to bury any other party six feet under.  Let's look at historical party extinctions:

Federalist Party (Early 1790's-1820's) Died sometime in the 1820's after spending a couple of decades as a mostly regional party centered around a small coastal urban elite.  And then you had the Hartford Convention, which pretty much sealed the Fed's inevitable fate.
Democratic Republican Party (Early 1790's-1820's)  TOO BIG TO FAIL.  Eventually, a party that manages to have 85% of all Congressional Representation and a supermajority of state governments is going to have divisions.  The problem with the DR's was the inverse of the Federalist Party.  While the Federalist Party was too limited in it's appeal and audience, the Democratic Republican Party was just too freaking large.  With the Federalists being too weak to even offer up a Presidential candidate, the 1824 Election arguably was what did the Democratic Republican Party in, as it's divisions became paramount to establishing a new party system.
National Republican Party (late 1820's-mid 1830's) Didn't really die off I guess, people just thought that "Whig" sounded cooler I guess.
Anti-Masonic Party (late 1820's-late 1830's) A party for it's time.  While it was founded on anti-Masonism, there seems to be a strong indicator that a lot of the Anti-Mason's strength came mostly from "f*** Jackson" and "f*** Clay".  The AM's had a very unique audience for it's era, as their winning of Vermont will likely show (think poor white nationalists who had large disdain for both rich southern Democratic planters and rich northern National Republican bankers).  Later on, the forming of the Whig Party seems to have really hurt the AM's, if Congressional results are any indicator.
Whig Party (mid 1830's-1860) Started out really strong with a coalition based around "f*** Jackson".  However, at the same time the party seemed to overplay itself.  Party heads expected Whig Administrations to be pro-nationalism despite the Whig Party essentially being a big ass tent party of all sorts of people who just DID NOT LIKE Andrew Jackson.  Which is how you got John Tyler, who pretty much operated as an old school Democratic Republican once in office.  Later on a series of internal debates on issues like slavery (which the Whigs seemed to be VERY hesitant on) would ultimately tear the party apart while they could never find any really strong Presidential candidate besides William Harrison (who turned out to be a senile dumbass who killed himself within a month).  Sure, history buffs may say "buhbuhbut HENRY CLAY!", but he kind of became known as the William Bryan of his day (with less enthusiasm) and Zachary Taylor, a man with no experience, simply ran on "Imma gonna kick some ass" or something.  THe latter's death, due again to dumbasserdy, led to the moderate hero administration of Millard Fillmore who failed to win his own party's nomination in 1852.  Overall, I would describe the Whig Party as "F***in it up from Day One".

The Democratic and Republican Parties, by comparison, have survived much harsher situations mostly due to their own cohesion and competence.  I doubt that is going to change in the future.

Civilization is more likely to fail before either one of these two parties do.

[politicus]

Get your point Mech, but at the same time your historical evidence points to one possible scenario in which a demise of one of the parties could happen:

The best chance would if the Republicans go even further to the right and becomes a relatively small SoCon, anti-immigration party with regional strenght in Appalachia, whites in the deep South and the plains but not much else, then the Democrats could face the same problem that the Democratic-Republicans did with being too dominant and too broad tent. There is a natural divide between moderates and progressives in the Democratic party, so the party could easily split without a strong common enemy.

But this is in 20-30 years time and only if there are no realignment and the pubs drift further to the right trying to be "true Conservatives".

[Mechaman]

Get your point Mech, but at the same time your historical evidence points to one possible scenario in which a demise of one of the parties could happen:

The best chance would if the Republicans go even further to the right and becomes a relatively small SoCon, anti-immigration party with regional strenght in Appalachia, whites in the deep South and the plains but not much else, then the Democrats could face the same problem that the Democratic-Republicans did with being too dominant and too broad tent. There is a natural divide between moderates and progressives in the Democratic party, so the party could easily split without a strong common enemy.

But this is in 20-30 years time and only if there are no realignment and the pubs drift further to the right trying to be "true Conservatives".

I will concede, this is a possibility.

However, I don't see even the Republican Party continuing on such a self-destructive path.  There is too much self-interest in survivalism for even them to continue on the Ultimate Purity path.  Eventually, the party will come to a standstill and realize they need a "Reformation".  The fact that they have a House majority and most of the state Governorships should be testament that they are at least doing SOMETHING right.

But like I said in the other thread, there is a slight possibility they just might continue to ignore the Doctor's Orders and their constipation would no longer be just a minor ailment but a fully grown cancer that rips the party asunder.

[BaldEagle1991]

The GOP if they keep ignoring minorities.

[Frodo]

Given the direction they seem intent on heading, the GOP.  I am certain the nativists will ultimately (and decisively) prevail in any intraparty civil war over immigration reform.  

[Person Man]

Get your point Mech, but at the same time your historical evidence points to one possible scenario in which a demise of one of the parties could happen:

The best chance would if the Republicans go even further to the right and becomes a relatively small SoCon, anti-immigration party with regional strenght in Appalachia, whites in the deep South and the plains but not much else, then the Democrats could face the same problem that the Democratic-Republicans did with being too dominant and too broad tent. There is a natural divide between moderates and progressives in the Democratic party, so the party could easily split without a strong common enemy.

But this is in 20-30 years time and only if there are no realignment and the pubs drift further to the right trying to be "true Conservatives".

I will concede, this is a possibility.

However, I don't see even the Republican Party continuing on such a self-destructive path.  There is too much self-interest in survivalism for even them to continue on the Ultimate Purity path.  Eventually, the party will come to a standstill and realize they need a "Reformation".  The fact that they have a House majority and most of the state Governorships should be testament that they are at least doing SOMETHING right.

But like I said in the other thread, there is a slight possibility they just might continue to ignore the Doctor's Orders and their constipation would no longer be just a minor ailment but a fully grown cancer that rips the party asunder.

Well, yeah. They are the inverse of the 1969-1993 Democratic Party. They are sort of in between workable coalitions (the  Union/New Deal Coalition is Dying and the  Hipster/Urban Coalition can still only get them to the mid40s and low 100s.)  However, they will still maintain a majority in state offices and non-statewide federal office because people simply aren't ready for everything that the president and senate's party wants. This is where the Republicans are. The Eisenhower Coalition has died and the Reagan coaition is aging quickly. As we enter the 2nd quarter of the 21st century, the Republican Party will find a new coalition to "give large financial gifts to" or the new second party will come from wishy-washy Democrats who ally with what's left of the Conservative movement to make a new party.

[nolesfan2011]

Neither, but I wish the GOP wasn't so bitterly conservative, and the Dems weren't so silently conservative.. and I wish the 3rd parties could get their act together.

I think both parties should die out and we have no parties. 

On a serious note, both of them are not going away anytime soon.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Neither is likely in the near future, but Republicans, if either one.  But please don't call it the "GOP party", because the P already stands for "party".  That's like nails on a blackbord to me.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

GOP party. It already has morphed into a "Tea Party" where Moderates like Olympia Snowe and Arlen Specter are no longer accepted. Soon there in 2016 there will be no moderate males left in the Senate with Kirk's defeat by Mike Quigley.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

This is a very leading question, since Republicans just lost a major election, so of course people are going to choose that as their answer.

[CountryRoads]

Hopefully both parties collapse via a very humbling, and devastating whipping from the American People.

I think the GOP will fall first, however. (Democrats will fall roughly 2-3 years afterwards)

[The Mikado]

Neither party is going anywhere.

[morgieb]

The parties have survived far more adversity than this.

[Talleyrand]

Neither is likely in the near future, but Republicans, if either one.  But please don't call it the "GOP party", because the P already stands for "party".  That's like nails on a blackbord to me.

And "Democrat Party" is like nails on a blackboard to me. If that's what you want people to do, I hope you are extending the same courtesy to the other side of the aisle.

And btw, the answer is neither. I think Republicans will adapt to become much more socially liberal and then our elections will be largely fought over economic and foreign affairs, allowing them to avoid "demographic doom" and continue their role in American politics. The party of Lincoln and Roosevelt will not be going anywhere in our lifetimes.

[Blackacre]

Neither is likely in the near future, but Republicans, if either one.  But please don't call it the "GOP party", because the P already stands for "party".  That's like nails on a blackbord to me.

And "Democrat Party" is like nails on a blackboard to me. If that's what you want people to do, I hope you are extending the same courtesy to the other side of the aisle.

And btw, the answer is neither. I think Republicans will adapt to become much more socially liberal and then our elections will be largely fought over economic and foreign affairs, allowing them to avoid "demographic doom" and continue their role in American politics. The party of Lincoln and Roosevelt will not be going anywhere in our lifetimes.

the whole Democrat/Democratic name thingy makes me wish my party had a different name. "He's a Progressive. He's in the Progressive party" for example.

[DC Al Fine]

Neither is likely in the near future, but Republicans, if either one.  But please don't call it the "GOP party", because the P already stands for "party".  That's like nails on a blackbord to me.

And "Democrat Party" is like nails on a blackboard to me. If that's what you want people to do, I hope you are extending the same courtesy to the other side of the aisle.

And btw, the answer is neither. I think Republicans will adapt to become much more socially liberal and then our elections will be largely fought over economic and foreign affairs, allowing them to avoid "demographic doom" and continue their role in American politics. The party of Lincoln and Roosevelt will not be going anywhere in our lifetimes.

Are the GOP actually socially liberal or just less socially conservative in your scenario?

[Blackacre]

Neither is likely in the near future, but Republicans, if either one.  But please don't call it the "GOP party", because the P already stands for "party".  That's like nails on a blackbord to me.

And "Democrat Party" is like nails on a blackboard to me. If that's what you want people to do, I hope you are extending the same courtesy to the other side of the aisle.

And btw, the answer is neither. I think Republicans will adapt to become much more socially liberal and then our elections will be largely fought over economic and foreign affairs, allowing them to avoid "demographic doom" and continue their role in American politics. The party of Lincoln and Roosevelt will not be going anywhere in our lifetimes.

Are the GOP actually socially liberal or just less socially conservative in your scenario?

I think the idea is that both parties would be identical on social issues. Popular opinion is increasingly going the Democrats' way on issues like abortion, same-sex marriage, etc. Social issues ALWAYS, in time, go the way of the liberals. Racial issues, gender equality, etc. The GOP's best case scenario is being identical to the dems on social issues and relying on their economic and foreign policies to win elections.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Neither party is likely to die out in my lifetime.  Of the three national minor parties, the one likeliest to die is the Constitution Party.  They didn't get to 270 ballot line EV this year and I wouldn't be surprised if it collapses like the Reform Party did, with remnant state parties but no national party.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Neither is likely in the near future, but Republicans, if either one.  But please don't call it the "GOP party", because the P already stands for "party".  That's like nails on a blackbord to me.

And "Democrat Party" is like nails on a blackboard to me. If that's what you want people to do, I hope you are extending the same courtesy to the other side of the aisle.

And btw, the answer is neither. I think Republicans will adapt to become much more socially liberal and then our elections will be largely fought over economic and foreign affairs, allowing them to avoid "demographic doom" and continue their role in American politics. The party of Lincoln and Roosevelt will not be going anywhere in our lifetimes.

Are the GOP actually socially liberal or just less socially conservative in your scenario?

I think the idea is that both parties would be identical on social issues. Popular opinion is increasingly going the Democrats' way on issues like abortion, same-sex marriage, etc. Social issues ALWAYS, in time, go the way of the liberals. Racial issues, gender equality, etc. The GOP's best case scenario is being identical to the dems on social issues and relying on their economic and foreign policies to win elections.

The tragedy of America.

[Talleyrand]

Neither is likely in the near future, but Republicans, if either one.  But please don't call it the "GOP party", because the P already stands for "party".  That's like nails on a blackbord to me.

And "Democrat Party" is like nails on a blackboard to me. If that's what you want people to do, I hope you are extending the same courtesy to the other side of the aisle.

And btw, the answer is neither. I think Republicans will adapt to become much more socially liberal and then our elections will be largely fought over economic and foreign affairs, allowing them to avoid "demographic doom" and continue their role in American politics. The party of Lincoln and Roosevelt will not be going anywhere in our lifetimes.

Are the GOP actually socially liberal or just less socially conservative in your scenario?

I think the idea is that both parties would be identical on social issues. Popular opinion is increasingly going the Democrats' way on issues like abortion, same-sex marriage, etc. Social issues ALWAYS, in time, go the way of the liberals. Racial issues, gender equality, etc. The GOP's best case scenario is being identical to the dems on social issues and relying on their economic and foreign policies to win elections.

To some extent, yeah. I expect the party to become neither socially liberal or socially conservative. It will endorse gay marriage, accept embryonic stem cell research, acknowledge climate change/ evolution, and immigration reform, but none of this will be done with nearly as much enthusiasm as the Left. But I do expect the retaining of a strong pro-life and pro-death penalty section of the party to endure, though I'd guess they would decline steadily.