the party in power has stayed in power in Chicago for over 50 years. There is no push to throw people out of power in the non-white , non-middle and upper middle class communities. the Repulbicans face the problem of having less than half of the population willing to even consider voting for a Repulbicans. That is why they spend zero dollars in California durng the campaign.

Politics may seem cyclical but demographics is linear and the demographics are against the Repulbicans.

When that happens a new version of the Republican Revolution (perhaps led by the Newtster himself!) will spring up, fed by populist outrage. Dumping the party in power will become the new rage, and some tech-savvy up-and-comer will join with the latest version of Atwater or Rove to unseat them en masse.

Politics is cyclical– three years ago we were sounding a death knell for the Democrats. Abramoff, Duke Cunningham, Foley and the ineptness of Bush/Cheney gave the party new life.

Thus, is having one party the same as having no politics parties? The answer is no. The Democratic Party will stay relevant since the easiest way to get on the ballot will be to win the Democratic primary. Thus, the real elections will occur in the Democratic Primary and the general election will be a moot exercise to confimr the results of the primary. See the municiple elections in any urban city where the elections are partisan.

That leaves each office open once per generation when the current holder retires or moves on and multiple candidates compete in the Democratic primary to hold the office for the next twenty years. Seniority rules will reinforce the idea that you had better keep reelecting your Senator or Comgressman so that your district will eventually have some power. There will also be the problem of current office holders willing their seats to relatives (See everything from Bud Schuster to Joe Biden.