Is the 2 party system dead in the US?

[hogwyld]

With Mr. Chafee jumping ship, and the overall slow death of the GOP, is America ready for one party rule? Will America unite under the Democratic party, or will it fracture us further?

[TechBear_Seattle]

1. It has been for a long time

When the self described "opposition party" refuses to oppose....

:shrug:

[ClassWarrior]

2. "Democrat party??"

Hmmmm...

NGU.

[valerief]

3. What 2 party system? Birthday and Wedding? nt

[MadHound]

4. It is dying quickly, both the Democrats and the Republicans

As both parties become ever more creatures of their corporate masters, more and more people are looking for another option. Next fall could deal a serious blow to the Democrats if Hillary gets the nod. Many, many on the left will abandon the party for good. Meanwhile the actions of Congress and the President are turning off both liberals and conservatives. It wouldn't surprise me to see a third party rise to prominence within twelve years.

[hogwyld]

7. Why would it be a serious blow

If a majority decide to nominate Hillary? I know she doesn't appeal to those that support, say, Dennis K. but a majority is a majority. I disagree with your view on a 3rd party as they will always seem to be fringe splinter type parties.

[MadHound]

14. If Hillary gets the nod, we could very well see a repeat of 1968

That's when a lot of the liberal, anti-war left abandoned the party never to come back. Some went third party, but most stayed home and have been there ever since.

I can foresee a similar situation come next fall if Hillary gets the nod.

[Totally Committed]

5. Right now it is, yes..... and it's DEMOCRATIC Party, thank you. eom

TC

[hogwyld]

6. Thanks for the correction!

I've edited the original to fix my erroneous grammar.

[Totally Committed]

8. No problem, my friend!

Any time. :)

TC

[KneelBeforeZod]

9. Optimistic view ...

Given the political climate in the U.S. since 1980 ... I'd say its overly optimistic of you to think the U.S. is prepared to jettison the Republican Party and unite under the "one-party rule" of the Democrats.

Since 1980, we've had 5 Republican Presidential Terms and 2 Democratic terms. The 5 Republican terms were either EXTREMELY Conservative (Reagan, G.W. Bush) or moderate-conservative (G.H.W. Bush). The 2 Democrat terms were both a conservative-DLC-Democrat (Clinton).

Conservatives had a stranglehold on Congress from 1994 to 2006 ... and only recently lost complete control of all three government branches. They've currently got a stranglehold on the Courts.

There hasn't been a truly liberal President since Jimmy Carter, and we're likely to nominate another DLC-Democrat (Clinton or Obama), while conservatives will nominate another EXTREMELY conservative candidate (Thompson or Giuliani). We shun our truly liberal candidates (Edwards and Kucunich), nominate our moderates (Clinton/ Obama) ... and they nominate their extremists (Thompson or Giuliani), and shun their moderates (McCain and Paul).

So - in 2008, we'll have another choice between a conservative Democrat, or an extremely conservative Republican.

If conservatism and the Republican Party were truly dead ... we'd be nominating liberals, and so would they. Not the other way around.

Z

[hogwyld]

10. While you make some fantastic points

I for one am an optimist, and believe we have turned the corner so to speak. Our thumping of the gop last November, and our impending win of the presidency albeit a DLC one, and possible gains in both houses of congress, along with state legislatures and governorships, could be a tipping point of returning to our liberal roots.

[KneelBeforeZod]

13. I'm not so sure ...

I've never been accused of being an optimist ... but I'm not so sure we've turned a corner here, and I don't think a Democrat victory in 2008 is a forgone conclusion.

I just don't think the American people have come as far as you seem to ... and I am not so sure that the 2006 election was a mandate for a liberal agenda, it may have just been a pissed-off knock at conservatives. I know polling is showing a supposedly "anti-war" sentiment ... but I've been getting the nagging feeling that it is based less on Americans being against the war, and more on Americans being pissed off that we're losing the war. That's a MAJOR distinction.

The American culture is based primarily on nationalism, violence, misogyny and racism ... the American people, with all their masculine cowboy sensibilities, believe that we've got the right to police the world, and that 9-11 gave us a blank check to attack whomever we choose. I get the feeling that they'd support the Iraq war if we were only winning it ... which opens the door for a "new strategy" for victory in Iraq, rather than a withdrawal from Iraq.

I simply don't believe the majority of Americans are anti-war (as nothing in America's vile past has shown them to be anti-war).

As for the upcoming Presidential election ... it isn't a particularly popular stand on this forum, but I think we might lose. There are a few reasons why ...

(1) Our nominee is likely to be Hillary Clinton. She's got decades of baggage, and her unpopularity numbers are astronomical. It does not bode well for a Presidential candidate when 46-49% of the electorate will not vote for her under any circumstances. Not to mention the fact that I'm not convinced that she'll even take us out of Iraq if elected. Also - if 2006 was an anti-war mandate, we're nominating the wrong candidate ... the one who is the most likely to keep the status quo in Iraq.

(2) Americans are absolutely tired of George W. Bush. But, Bush isn't running. They're not tired of Fred Thompson or Rudy Giuliani (and may actually be more tired of Hillary Clinton than either likely Republican nominee). Once the Republicans get a new party leader, I fear that people may not transfer their dislike of B*sh to the new candidate.

Fred Thompson scares the hell out of me. He's just the kind of guy that middle-America loves ... he's a good-'ol-boy with a Southern accent, he's an arch-conservative hawk, he's a tax-cutting supply-sider, he's got that hyper-machismo that ignorant-Americans often go for, and he's quicker-witted and more well-spoken than B*sh. He honestly reminds me of Ronny Raygun ... and we all recall what Raygun did to liberalism and the Democratic Party. If he gets elected, there could be many dark days ahead.

Giuliani scares me less because of his past ... but I also think Thompson will be the likely nominee, so it doesn't matter.

(3) Additionally, there's the election fraud angle. If this race is even close, it'll go to the Republicans. With Democrats running their least-likeable candidate, and Republicans running their most-likeable (to middle-America), I don't see how it won't be close.

I think we often get caught up in DU, and forget that Democrats must win in middle-America in order to prevail, and must overcome Diebold, and rampant voter fraud to do so. I think we're going to nominate the EXACT wrong candidate to win over the ignorant, masculine, racist masses in middle-America ... and it looks to me like the Republicans are going to nominate the exact right candidate to do so.

Personally, I'm preparing for the Fred Thompson administration ... and four more years of endless war (probably in Iran and Syria, along with Iraq), death, poverty and environmental destruction.

Z

[CK_John]

11. We are a "with me or against me" culture, a "yea or nay" political system and I don't see an change.

[MonkeyFunk]

12. No

both parties are still strong. Chafee's "defection" is meaningless, as he's just a private citizen now.