Worst-case scenario hypothetical

[Meursault]

A President of the opposition Party One is elected after a period of strong dominance by Party Two. A year into his term, the economy undergoes a Hooveresque crash: unemployment soars from six percent to over thirty; trade collapses overnight, etc. After three years of Party One flailing for a solution based on its principles, the public returns to the tried-and-true policies of Party Two. 

Now, this differs from the real life Great Depression in two ways: (A) the historical Depression occurred after an era of GOP dominance; this one during the reign of the long-term opposition Party One. And (B) as a consequence, Party Two has not acquired the popular goodwill that came to Roosevelt's Democrats after being out of power so long. They're held to still be partly responsible for the situation.

Now say that their response also fails, so that both Parties are seen as discredited on the economy, which continues to worsen. What happens now? Eighty years ago this is what the CPUSA or the Silvershirts existed for.

[Person Man]

Basically, in this scenario, FDR gets elected in 1928, instead of 1932 and the Great Depression still happens?

[Deus Naturae]

Are there any big wars going on?

[Meursault]

Night Man: yes, but applied to contemporary times, with the abolition of popular belief in transformative revolution factored in.

Deus: no, nor any other obvious externality to cause the crash.

[PiMp DaDdy FitzGerald]

Markets always rebound, so the logical choice would be to go with the party you currently most agree with because eventually things will turn around.

[SteveRogers]

A strong independent candidate wins a respectable but non-game-changing chunk of the popular vote in the next presidential election but probably no electoral votes. Many congressional incumbents on both sides of the aisle lose their seats. That's about it.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Parties would draft outsiders in - maybe a popular Governor, a businessman or a military leader.

[Meursault]

So both Parties being discredited simultaneously wouldn't be enough to rid us of them, then?

[SteveRogers]

So both Parties being discredited simultaneously wouldn't be enough to rid us of them, then?

Nope. A strong two-party system is hardwired into our Constitution. The best you could do in such a situation is keep kicking out incumbents and cycling back and forth between the parties until somebody does something right (or is lucky enough to have the economy turn around on their watch).

[Person Man]

I'm guessing if the economy when double dip in  2012 and stayed in recession until 2014, I could see the Democrats being swept from office only for them to recapture Congress in 2014. Maybe Romney would redeem himself by 2016, but Congress would probably say D to through at least 2020.

[TNF]

In the next election, I would assume that a Party Three would also come into being. It may not be very organized or have a huge impact at first, but my assumption is that it would be on the political fringe (either left or right, probably the opposite of Party One or Party Two, whichever is in power) and would have enough momentum to throw the election to Party One, which is yet again presumably unable to fix the crisis.

In that case, I think you have massive social unrest (think the Late Thirties times ten) and a real shot at Party Three winning the subsequent contest. Of course, I don't seriously see Party One or Party Two allowing Party Three (or whatever radical movement arises) to take power peaceably, and so I would think the two might collaborate to stop it. A National Unity ticket reminiscent of 1864, perhaps.