Why would anyone want to be the permanent opposition party? … There will soon come a time when more than half of Congress will be incumbent Democrats are running unopposed. That will be the time that the Republicans should fold as a party.

The eventual permanent-minority opposition? If that were to transpire, I would accept your point. I simply have lived and traveled to too many places to see this nation’s future as Cyanide Nation sclerotic. Not everyone continues to live in the 1950s and 1960s, with benefits and Other People’s Money For Us.

Even though there is a risk of “infection” to more-red places that draw blue migrants (of blue politics and attitudes), don’t forget that in many cases, departure from the heavy blue areas is due to push factors, while the red destinations offer pull factors (better climate, more jobs, newer road and building construction, and — often a much better, more mainstream political and cultural environment).

Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, Jews, Gay, etc do not become Republicans are they grow older.

A political party takes activitst and true believers to succeed. It also takes ambitious people who want to make things happen. Why would anyone want to be the permanent opposition party? That is why the Republican Party is Mass, Maryland, DC is irrelevant today. Anyone with any ambition is going to avoid a sure loser.

And last, running campaigns takes money. In the past (pre-1960), the out of power party was not hurt by the lack of fund raising. Today, few are going to donate to a party that cannot affect policy. The money will flow to the party can make reward or punish groups. There will soon come a time when more than half of Congress will be incumbent Democrats are running unopposed. That will be the time that the Republicans should fold as a party.

[... P]resumably the Democrat turned Republican turned Independent would try to position himself as a kind of postpartisan progressive “centrist.” Along those lines, this Sunday the mayor is ostentatiously attending a conference of other self-styled centrists at the University of Oklahoma. Hosted by former Democratic Senator David Boren, the session will include the likes of former Democratic Senator Sam Nunn, current Republican Senator Chuck Hagel (who famously predicted the “surge” in Iraq would be a disaster), and others who argue that the main poison in our politics is too much partisanship. …

Our own guess is that Mr. Bloomberg would cut into the support of the weaker of the two major-party candidates, making victory easier for the other. That was Mr. Perot’s main legacy in 1992. After eight years out of power, Democrats are eager enough to win this year that we suspect they will unite around whoever their nominee is to get to 270 electoral votes in a three-man race. Mr. Bloomberg would end up spending $500 million to elect a Democrat he probably would vote for himself if he stayed out of the race. Of course, it is his money.

America is the land of right/wrong. Up/down. Left/right. Black/White.

There is no room for grey areas

Not true, but — while perceptions are more complex, decisions or votes typically are affirmative or negative. Ultimately it’s yes or no. If that is what you actually meant, I agree with you.

Please remember my example of five separate issues. That’s 32 different yes-no combinations. Two parties, with their platforms of five decisions each (one combination out of 32), cannot come close to satisfying everyone’s needs adequately.

Please remember that this nation and this continent are not homogeneous, and that even within modern metro areas there are more affluent suburbs that are more conservative as well as suburbs that are more liberal than average.

There is a future role the GOP can play as well, pitiful as it may strike you initially. In our future, there will be a generational as well as fiscal war (with howling and anguish and anger on both sides) as the rising costs of Social Security and Medicare lead to the need for cost controls (growth caps, actual benefit reductions) and for tax increases. It makes sense that one party will become the representatives of the taxpayers (the GOP, currently avoided by the younger voters) while the other will represent the beneficiaries (the Democrats, who begat these programs).

There are over 100 Democratic Congressmen who are running for office without meaningful opposition. There are less than 25 Republicans in the same situation.

There were as many Democratic state Senators and Representatives in the Mass. state house when Romney left as when he start. Romney had little effect on Mass. since the legislature could still do what it wanted. The same occurred with Ehrlich in Maryland and is happening in California with Schwarzenegger. I guess you could argue that Balitmore, Philly, NYC, or Chicago have two party areas but when one party wins all of the elections, they are defacto one party states. The same can probably be said for Utah for the Republicans.

However when you look at the 3-d map of the Presidential Election, the two odd statistics is many more counties vote Republican than Democratic but when a county votes Democratic, it is usually overwhelmingly Democratic such as the 90% Democratic vote in DC or the 80% Democratic vote in NYC, SF, LA

As the U.S. becomes demogrpahically more like LA than Des Moines, politics will become more like the politics in LA, one party dominates and the other does not even bother.

Local politics are much more personal. Party affiliation is largely irrelevant. Where I live EVERYONE is a Democrat but there are numerous different Democratic factions that compete against each other.

I am not sure who you can say that Mass has only one functional party. Isn’t there a guy running for President as a Republican from Mass?

Just because one party dominates doesn’t mean that there aren’t two parties.

There is no room for grey areas which is why I laugh at those who claim to be moderates. Does that mean you sorta believe in Gay rights and sorta dont? You sorta believe in Welfare and you sorta dont? You sorta believe in Abortion and you sorta dont. You sorta believe in war and you sorta dont?

SD I hear your perpetual assumptions that this country will become a one party system yet that flies against the nature of man. There will always be two parties in America. They just might not resemble the parties that you wish for.

Immigration is the bane of the world because those ignorant are fleeing for a new hope and a new dream. Bringing with them their ignorant ideas and their ignorant views of the country they choose as their homes.

Read ignorant as ( 1. Lacking education or knowledge.
2. Showing or arising from a lack of education or knowledge: an ignorant mistake.
3. Unaware or uninformed.)

I am not insulting them or impuning their integrity. I am saying that they are of a different culture and mindset and it is this that will overwhelm America. Has overwhelmed America and changed the very core of its value system.(Do not read values as Republican values)

I agree with one assertion you make. Immigrants flood to the democratic party and they vote for democrats because they believe in some of the things they stand for. I Do not believe that they believe in the social values of the Democrats but because the Democrats appear to appease the welfare/govt handout needs of these people they are willing to overlook the social agenda for the welfare agenda.

It is why the democrats and their supporters were rubbing their hands in glee over this last attempt at Immigration reform. Everyone knew it would not LIMIT immigration but would in fact quadruple immigration over the next 20 years thus ensuring the dominance of the Democratic party.

Talk about a party selling the US down the river for votes. At least the Republicans do it openly, the Democrats are doing it with the expertise of a master spy.

Failure IS the OPTION of choice now for the Democratic party. As soon as the war on terror seemed to be going fairly smoothly and the American Public was in strong support…….the democrats started screaming………FAILURE>…..ITS A FAILURE….Harry Reid Screamed the “WAR IS LOST” while troops are in the field. Failure is their goal, misery is their agenda.

Convince Americans that they are miserable and that failure is the ONLY option if the other guys are in charge and ONLY THE DEMOCRATS have the prescription for your health and wellbeing through perpetual dependency upon the Democratic party to solve your wants and needs. While screaming that the Republicans hate you cause they want to give Tax breaks to those EVIL, HURTFUL, SPITEFUL corporations that want to give you a freakin job and MAKE you work for a living.

It is this mindset then that insures there will always be two parties because until we swing totally communist and trash the constitution there will always be some one opposed to the others agenda.

there are many places in the U.S. that does not have either a functional Republican or Democratic Party. Look at states like Mass, Maryland, Delaware, RI to see states without a functional Repubican party. Another political party has not started up to replace the Republicans.

The real question is why can’t the U.S. function like Mass. or Maryland with only one relevant political party?

While a political party can collapse(the Federalists, Whigs, etc) they are soon replaced by a new competing party.

The only way a 3rd party or Independent candidate can viably compete is if the major parties are severely fractured(i.e. 1860)

Our government generally eschews radicalism. The 2 parties are generally 2 sides of the same coin. They run to the middle, which is generally a good thing.

Your idea the two party system will keep on working forgets than all of the previous times in the U.S., it was white Europeans were the voters and the politicians.

As the U.S. becomes more diverse and the demographics changes in the U.S. become more substantial, the idea that a two party system can function is laughable.

Look at the cities with the highest percentages of immigrants or minorities. They are all overwhelmingly Democratic. As the rest of the U.S. becomes like California, then the rest of the U.S. will function like the one party state that California has become. Do you really think the U.S. can function as a two party political system when blacks, Hispanics, and Asian vote so overwhelmingly Democratic and with the Republicans of having no hope of appealing to minorities?

The future of the U.S. is as a one party state much like the large urban areas function today. Then politics will not be about making changes but about preserving government entitlements for your own group while sticking some other group with the costs (See California).

The libertarian party which is probably the closest to an actual third party in America pretty much embraces radical, non mainstream ideas in which the Holy Grail of the constitution is adhered to by the letter. Even the Libertarian views have been latched onto and butchered into incoherent babble by the far left antiwar/antieverything crowd.

You know much as some Christians take the bible word for word and have a different interpretation. So is the Libertarians. So has been the screaming from the antiwar/Libertarian left over the war. Its like the Evolution uproar. Really in the grand scheme of things what is it hurting? This nation must change in order to protect and defend itself and its ever altering way of life in a world never imagined by the founding fathers.

A nation that was established on conservative values(NO not the conservative values of todays republican party before you go ballistic and start frothing at the mouths)are seeing those values change over time. The unchanging constitution is being bandied about to support those changes when in fact such changes are societal and not proscribed for in the constitution and yet the very advocates of change wave the constitution around as if it is the holy grail of the New Testament.

They hide behind the Constitution much as early Christians and even some of todays Christians hide behind the Bible. There is no difference. Both in my opinion have an entirely skewed concept of their trusted Written Word and believe that it says or means something that it does not.

So until the societal upheaval that this nation is undergoing is calmed the best thing to do it to stay the course with the horse that brung us to the dance. Two parties have worked. Radical shifts in thinking are and have always been rejected in the end by a nation that always returns to its conservative thinking(no not the conservative thinking of Republicans lest you go ballistic and start foaming at the mouth.)

Yet the residual effects of this attempt at change remain and the nation takes another step forward. Those longing for a third party are only wishing for change to happen faster then this nation will or can allow. Change happens, it just must happen slowly so that a nation can accept the change with time and move forward as she always has. With grace and power and a newly defined sense of herself.

A third party (or even organized moderates) may want to try to pick off the most extreme members of both parties instead of trying to do the impossible. Maybe the efforts that voted Cynthia McKinney out of office twice should be used to vote the most extreme Republicans and Democrats out of office. That would make politics much more moderate rather than running a doomed campaign for president.

On Iraq?
On Iran?
On Palestine?
On Pakistan?
On China?
On Mexico?
On Europe?

Domestic Policy:What should they be?

On Drugs?
On Health Care?
On Illegal Aliens?
On Taxes?
On Employment?
On Abortion?
On Infrastructure?
On Trade?

Are we just looking for someone to pursue Republican Policies without the stink of the Republican Brand?