If Obama Wins, Wither the Republicans?

[The Cookish States]

I believe this was widely heard around the early 1770's on the east coast you all seem to be idolizing in this thread.

It's still a pipe dream. The whole scenario beginning with the end of the GOP.

It's really just speculation, but I don't really understand how you can attempt to refute everything I've said by calling it a pipe dream.

[The Cookish States]

I believe this was widely heard around the early 1770's on the east coast you all seem to be idolizing in this thread.

It's still a pipe dream. The whole scenario beginning with the end of the GOP.

It's really just speculation, but I don't really understand how you can attempt to refute everything I've said by calling it a pipe dream.

[Wamitoria]

The phrase Pipe Dream comes to mind.

I believe this was widely heard around the early 1770's on the east coast you all seem to be idolizing in this thread.

I believe you mean that it was widely heard around the late 1850s.

It didn't end well.

[Soleichunn]

What I would be interested in is a breakdown of party funding sources & spending targets, because that's where the fun starts for GOP strategic planning.

My view (all of it pure speculation) is that an additional lurch to the right is inevitable at this point, win or lose. What will I definitely think it will the character of the shift, and how they deal with a growing 'tail' of people who don't complete the full move rightwards.

Either the shift will be of the hysterical quality, or it will be a grim, 'bunker down the hatches' move. While I could see some flagging. The turbulent emotional shift (all other things being equal), if sustained, would likely help the GOP's chances in 2016 (by energising their base, and helping retain power in the House), especially if the USA slides downwards (which may decrease the Democrat base's participation rates). However, this will mean an almost sure collapse later on (by 2020 if they lose again) no matter whom gets the keys to the White House or Congress - their base will be exhausted by the constant campaigning, the. Perhaps worst of all

Bunkering down would be an option, but that would be dependent on the state of the world - if the world economy picks up then they would highly exposed. However if everything turns south they'd be primed for a comeback. However this is probably worse for the long time viability of the party - the hysterical option, whilst more risky, would help to fracture the largest factions as well helping to blend/fuse differing ideologies, and make it seem more diverse (not to mention it would help radicalise the more moderate members, retaining them in the party). The party would become a bit more loose, but would retain their unity, and open the way for a single unifying member (which would help bring out the apathetic/non-political people to vote GOP). Closing the borders risks one or more factions fully solidifying, the solution and outcome of which would be the same - ejecting them to form a third party.

If the GOP retain functional control over the federal government, and continue the same obstructionist policies . If the tea partiers can further traction, I'd expect the majority of capital intensive businesses (infrastructure, high tech items, military equipment, machinery, major agricultural interests, etc) to shift to the Democrats. Finance would probably split, based around whether they exist in risky finance and focus on personal taxation, or if they're more conventional finance. Now what would be interesting would be the reaction to this split - does the GOP try to maintain the old single issue appeal to these donators (most of whom would only be interested in getting their lobbying done, not the party ideologies, which would also threaten the GOP with a vicious slide downwards), or start expanding their list of 'corrupt' industries? The media centre being outside of the party would probably help them here.

It all depends then on the state parties - can they solidify control, allowing for a more 'grassroots' attempt to rebuild support, or are they thrown out of all swing states (and greater Democrat presence in their strongholds), effectively becoming an opposition movement (which would likely result in a greater focus on the federal apparatus, and a shift towards pro-federal rhetoric).

TL;DR: The loss will further discredit the traditional leadership, concentrating power on new radicals & out-of-party/leadership people. Further economic radicalisation will drive traditional big business & non-political firms to support only the democrats, further concentrating financial dependency on out-of-party financiers and single issue (tax, unregulated finance) wealthy individuals/firms.

To preserve democracy, no less.

The only way to preserve democracy is to blatantly ignore it and overthrow it. If you weren't such commies, you'd know that.

Friedman would be so proud of YS's vanguard politics.

[Urcea]

So if the Republican Party collapses, what happens to the American two party system? Does a new center-right party emerge? Do Republicans flock to the, say, Constitution Party? Or do things devolve into a three party system in which the Liberals remain Democrats, a new centrist party forms out of establishment Republicans and moderate Democrats, and the remainder of the right goes to a large third party?

[Enadail]

So if the Republican Party collapses, what happens to the American two party system? Does a new center-right party emerge? Do Republicans flock to the, say, Constitution Party? Or do things devolve into a three party system in which the Liberals remain Democrats, a new centrist party forms out of establishment Republicans and moderate Democrats, and the remainder of the right goes to a large third party?

While it would suck in the sense of creating political chaos (and I think is extremely unlikely), I could only hope that the collapse of either of the main parties would cause third parties besides simply being "left, center, right" to come up (constitution, green, etc). Unfortunately, I don't think the political system we have is really setup for multiple parties; I believe we'd need a core reform to get there.

[Alien Space Bats]

So if the Republican Party collapses, what happens to the American two party system? Does a new center-right party emerge? Do Republicans flock to the, say, Constitution Party? Or do things devolve into a three party system in which the Liberals remain Democrats, a new centrist party forms out of establishment Republicans and moderate Democrats, and the remainder of the right goes to a large third party?

My expectation would be that what was once the GOP would split into thirds: Libertarians would get one chunk, some far-right Party (Constitution or whatever) would get the second, and the Democrats would grab the third.

By moving further right to snag the most moderate Republicans, the Democratic Party would return to the era of faction politics. This might open up some room for greater Green or Socialist activity on the left, or it might simply mean that the Democratic Party would become a bigger tent. Essentially, we'd return to the political model of the early 19th Century, in which a dominant Democratic Party faced an ad hoc opposition made up of whatever loose coalition of rival parties and independents happened to surface at the moment (back then, it was the Whigs, Free Soilers, Know Nothings, and various other short-lived entities). This would probably continue until a new left- or right-opposition emerged, with the possibility that both might show up in time, with the Democrats then homesteading the center.

In essence, the aftermath of the GOP's demise would be a transitional period to another political system - but one that would probably take 12-20 years to negotiate.

[Urcea]

So if the Republican Party collapses, what happens to the American two party system? Does a new center-right party emerge? Do Republicans flock to the, say, Constitution Party? Or do things devolve into a three party system in which the Liberals remain Democrats, a new centrist party forms out of establishment Republicans and moderate Democrats, and the remainder of the right goes to a large third party?

My expectation would be that what was once the GOP would split into thirds: Libertarians would get one chunk, some far-right Party (Constitution or whatever) would get the second, and the Democrats would grab the third.

By moving further right to snag the most moderate Republicans, the Democratic Party would return to the era of faction politics. This might open up some room for greater Green or Socialist activity on the left, or it might simply mean that the Democratic Party would become a bigger tent. Essentially, we'd return to the political model of the early 19th Century, in which a dominant Democratic Party faced an ad hoc opposition made up of whatever loose coalition of rival parties and independents happened to surface at the moment (back then, it was the Whigs, Free Soilers, Know Nothings, and various other short-lived entities). This would probably continue until a new left- or right-opposition emerged, with the possibility that both might show up in time, with the Democrats then homesteading the center.

In essence, the aftermath of the GOP's demise would be a transitional period to another political system - but one that would probably take 12-20 years to negotiate.

Could you foresee something similar to the New Deal Era, in which things similar to the "Conservative Coalition" would form out of Democratic factions along with whatever the "flavor of the month" party is in regards to the other two large parties? Or would it be strictly more Democrat Factionalism winning the day with the other two parties budged out?

[Alien Space Bats]

Could you foresee something similar to the New Deal Era, in which things similar to the "Conservative Coalition" would form out of Democratic factions along with whatever the "flavor of the month" party is in regards to the other two large parties? Or would it be strictly more Democrat Factionalism winning the day with the other two parties budged out?

I'm not quite sure of what you're getting at, but I could imagine a Green-Democrat ruling coalition - something of a 1½ party system - in which the two Parties compete over certain seats and offices in elections and then work together to enact common legislation between elections.

In this scenario, the far right would be splintered between two or more Parties (LIbertarian, Constitution, whatever), while the center-right and center would firmly belong to the Democrats. The far left would belong to the Greens, and the center-left would be where most of the competition in American politics occurs.

[The Amyclae]

The closest election is always a realignment and, without fail, the next election invariably proves how little science goes into political science. 2000? 20004? 2008? 2010? "Realignments," according to quite a few in the chattering classes.

As much as we hate it, if the GOP could weather 2008, they can weather another four years of a wounded, mandateless President.

Perhaps this election may finally capitalize on the increasing irrelevant nature of party politics, by producing some final transition of the GOP from a national banner to a group built around a series of Super PACs, but that would only be the capstone tp a larger trend in American politics. It would have little to do with Romney or Obama.

.02

[Caninope]

The closest election is always a realignment and, without fail, the next election invariably proves how little science goes into political science. 2000? 20004? 2008? 2010? "Realignments," according to quite a few in the chattering classes.

As much as we hate it, if the GOP could weather 2008, they can weather another four years of a wounded, mandateless President.

Perhaps this election may finally capitalize on the increasing irrelevant nature of party politics, by producing some final transition of the GOP from a national banner to a group built around a series of Super PACs, but that would only be the capstone tp a larger trend in American politics. It would have little to do with Romney or Obama.

.02

Can you link me to prominent political scientists who have called '00, '04, or '08 realignment elections?

[The Amyclae]

The closest election is always a realignment and, without fail, the next election invariably proves how little science goes into political science. 2000? 20004? 2008? 2010? "Realignments," according to quite a few in the chattering classes.

As much as we hate it, if the GOP could weather 2008, they can weather another four years of a wounded, mandateless President.

Perhaps this election may finally capitalize on the increasing irrelevant nature of party politics, by producing some final transition of the GOP from a national banner to a group built around a series of Super PACs, but that would only be the capstone tp a larger trend in American politics. It would have little to do with Romney or Obama.

.02

Can you link me to prominent political scientists who have called '00, '04, or '08 realignment elections?

The closest election is always a realignment and, without fail, the next election invariably proves how little science goes into political science. 2000? 20004? 2008? 2010? "Realignments," according to quite a few in the chattering classes. 

As much as we hate it, if the GOP could weather 2008, they can weather another four years of a wounded, mandateless President. 

Perhaps this election may finally capitalize on the increasing irrelevant nature of party politics, by producing some final transition of the GOP from a national banner to a group built around a series of Super PACs, but that would only be the capstone tp a larger trend in American politics. It would have little to do with Romney or Obama. 

.02

Can you link me to prominent political scientists who have called '00, '04, or '08 realignment elections?

As luck would have it, Sean Trende has done the work for us. He has a book on 'debunking' the idea of a permaneant majority, 'The Lost Majority, in contemporary politics that goes far beyond my own, admittedly limited, attention span. Along the way he cites quite a few political commentators that chat up realignments and permaneant majorities (especially during and after election results).

With a little bit of Google magic, I've discovered something similar he's written for RCP that isn't behind a pay-wall. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articl ... 97110.html

While not perfect, since his assumption is that we've read and heard from the GOP in 2000 and 2004 and 2010 of the GOP 'ark' or the Democratic ascent in 2008 (and 2012?) he doesn't cite as many as he does in the book itself. I think, however, Piratebay has a few illegal copies floating about. Have at it. 

[Alien Space Bats]

Methinks you don't understand the meaning of the term "realignment election".

[The Amyclae]

Methinks you don't understand the meaning of the term "realignment election".

Perhaps not, perhaps I do. I think, however, you shouldn't lose sight of that I do understand that while Sean Trende does focus on debunking everlasting majorities the people he cites are, either in the specific articles he cites or in their other writings, very big on identifying the last decade as one of near-continual realignments.

Reading Mr. Trende's commentary on the sillyness of PMs is, ultimately, icing on the cake.

[Lievatia]

So if the Republican Party collapses, what happens to the American two party system? Does a new center-right party emerge? Do Republicans flock to the, say, Constitution Party? Or do things devolve into a three party system in which the Liberals remain Democrats, a new centrist party forms out of establishment Republicans and moderate Democrats, and the remainder of the right goes to a large third party?

Generational Republicans are raising the demands for a party less hell-bent on fusionism. The form this takes, honestly, depends upon the way the difference is handled.

[Alien Space Bats]

Looking at House majorities absent any consideration of gerrymandering is rather silly, don't you think?

Yet that's what Trende is doing, which is why his analysis is questionable. He attributes changes in party control to bad luck or economic events without considering the underlying district structure that determines the makeup of the House. Absent such an analysis, he's missing the greater part of the picture.

But more importantly, he implicitly recognizes the one thing that can produce a lasting political change: Long-term demographic trends. Look at his discussion of the extinction of the GOP in New England if you want an example of this.

That said, the biggest problem with his analysis is that he's battling a straw man. Realignment elections and party systems are not about anybody gaining or having a "permanent majority"; they are about a sea change in our national politics that makes each epoch different from the one that came before it. There is no guarantee - or even any implication - that any new epoch will bring about any kind of intrinsic majority for anyone; there is simply an understanding that the new epoch brings with it new rules. The death of the New Deal coalition and its replacement with the Reagan coalition didn't mean Democrats were doomed to "eternal" defeat; it simply meant that the old system they had used to construct electoral victory was dead, and that they were forced to replace it with a new system, which they ultimately did.

This brings us to the heart of the current matter: I am not suggesting that a vital, flexible Republican Party couldn't adapt to the rising tide of minority political participation; what I am suggesting is that systemic flaws with the GOP make such changes impossible to contemplate without wrenching changes within the Party proper - changes which I don't feel the GOP is capable of making. When something like that happens, we see the death of a Party and a change in the fundamental political system; eventually, the Parties that remain shift positions in response to the event, new Parties arise, and we end up in an altogether different world.

If the GOP were still under the control of its elites, it could adjust to the coming demographic challenge; because it isn't, it will end up blundering onto the rocks, and there's a real possibility that it might not be able to slip off again. After all, sometimes organizations do die and get replaced; indeed, we see it in the business world all the time.

[The Amyclae]

I'm not going to speak for Mr. Trende. It would require more confidence on my part, perhaps even outright hubris, to suggest I could justice to an argument which takes 200+ pages to relate.

The only utility I recieved was that he is very good at pointing to popular and academic writers that, one way or another, see the elections of this last decade and change as evidence of a wide, new and inviolable political coalition... Right before the next election proves something else.

I'd be the first to admit that I'm not taking a sympathetic reading to those writers. For instance, Sabato's 'The Year of Obama: How Barack Obama Won the White House' is fairly clear that 2008 was a realignment year. It turned out, once we hit 2010, that a lot of those subthesises were a bit off. There is a lot of good in the book, and perhaps it deserves to be mentioned. All I'm taking from it is that he did point to 2008 as being a realignment year and he has a few more initials in front of his name than our average blogger.

Does this mean anything for Trende's analysis? Perhaps, perhaps not but I'm not sure how useful it would be for me to get in a discussion about a fairly tedious book I didn't approach with any amount of seriousness.

[Caninope]

I'm not going to speak for Mr. Trende. It would require more confidence on my part, perhaps even outright hubris, to suggest I could justice to an argument which takes 200+ pages to relate.

The only utility I recieved was that he is very good at pointing to popular and academic writers that, one way or another, see the elections of this last decade and change as evidence of a wide, new and inviolable political coalition... Right before the next election proves something else.

I'd be the first to admit that I'm not taking a sympathetic reading to those writers. For instance, Sabato's 'The Year of Obama: How Barack Obama Won the White House' is fairly clear that 2008 was a realignment year. It turned out, once we hit 2010, that a lot of those subthesises were a bit off. There is a lot of good in the book, and perhaps it deserves to be mentioned. All I'm taking from it is that he did point to 2008 as being a realignment year and he has a few more initials in front of his name than our average blogger.

Does this mean anything for Trende's analysis? Perhaps, perhaps not but I'm not sure how useful it would be for me to get in a discussion about a fairly tedious book I didn't approach with any amount of seriousness.

Except that there can be realignment periods, and not just elections.

Considering the change in the GOP over the last 30 years, I think it's fair to say that there's been some realigning going on.

[AiliailiA]

The thread title has a spelling error.

If Obama wins, they have to wait another four years. They will probably have the House, and there's the midterms. No-one likes losing an election but it's hardly an apocalypse.

[Alien Space Bats]

Except that there can be realignment periods, and not just elections.

Considering the change in the GOP over the last 30 years, I think it's fair to say that there's been some realigning going on.

Which gets to the essence of my argument.

The New Deal coalition that Roosevelt hammered together in 1932 - and which Democrats used as the foundation for their efforts at winning the White House - very clearly ceased to exist in 1980. This is not to say that this coalition brought the Democrats victory every single year; in particular it failed the Democrats badly in 1968 and 1972. Yet as late as 1976, it was still able to deliver the White House to the Democrats.

But then came 1980, and the New Deal coalition broke down beyond repair; and even when the Democrats nominated a pair of Southerners to their ticket in 1992, it still didn't come back - the coalition that Clinton put together was a horse of an altogether different color - an urban/suburban coalition built on an entirely different foundation than what Roosevelt hammered together 60 years earlier.

This is what realignment means: That strategies, tactics, and coalitions that once brought victory fall away, forcing one or both Parties to shuffle the deck and come up with something different. The system's fundamental arrangement - its alignment - changes into something different.

The last three elections have looked very different from 1980, however - which implies that another set of changes are in the offing. After this year it will be clearer whether or not we've shuffled the deck again, and just what the nature of the new political arrangement actually is. But keep in mind - as I said before - that such changes don't necessarily give one side or the other a killing advantage. My argument that we may be seeing such a thing this time is more a consequence of the fact that the GOP has lost political flexibility; that loss of flexibility suggests to me that if the Reagan coalition (or what's left of it) fails the Republicans once and for all, they may not have the political will to realign themselves internally in order to find a new winning coalition.

[Alien Space Bats]

The thread title has a spelling error.

The thread title is a pun.

[Silent Majority]

The last three elections have looked very different from 1980, however - which implies that another set of changes are in the offing. After this year it will be clearer whether or not we've shuffled the deck again, and just what the nature of the new political arrangement actually is. But keep in mind - as I said before - that such changes don't necessarily give one side or the other a killing advantage. My argument that we may be seeing such a thing this time is more a consequence of the fact that the GOP has lost political flexibility; that loss of flexibility suggests to me that if the Reagan coalition (or what's left of it) fails the Republicans once and for all, they may not have the political will to realign themselves internally in order to find a new winning coalition.

If the Republicans were to adapt, what changes do you think they would need to make in order to stay competitive?

[PapaJacky]

The last three elections have looked very different from 1980, however - which implies that another set of changes are in the offing. After this year it will be clearer whether or not we've shuffled the deck again, and just what the nature of the new political arrangement actually is. But keep in mind - as I said before - that such changes don't necessarily give one side or the other a killing advantage. My argument that we may be seeing such a thing this time is more a consequence of the fact that the GOP has lost political flexibility; that loss of flexibility suggests to me that if the Reagan coalition (or what's left of it) fails the Republicans once and for all, they may not have the political will to realign themselves internally in order to find a new winning coalition.

If the Republicans were to adapt, what changes do you think they would need to make in order to stay competitive?

Their stances on Civil Liberties will have to change "liberally".

Foreign Policy and Economic policies still have wiggle room, but not civil liberties.

[Alien Space Bats]

If the Republicans were to adapt, what changes do you think they would need to make in order to stay competitive?

More fundamentally, the GOP needs to regain control of its own primary and nomination apparatus. When the rank-and-file routinely toss established officeholders out on their ear for the sin of merely cooperating with Democrats, that's a problem; when extremists can move the Party in the opposite direction of where it needs to be to win elections, that's an even bigger problem. Right now both conditions exist within the GOP, which has repeatedly chosen candidates whose ideological purity is high over those who present it with a better chance of winning.

There needs to be a feedback apparatus in place that guides a political Party - any political Party - back towards fielding viable candidates; where such a feedback apparatus is in place, the Party can "learn" from its mistakes and adjust to become successful at the ballot box again. This is what moved the Democratic Party back to the center after it strayed too far to the left in the early 1970's, and then guided it to a more pragmatic platform in the 1990's - both of which were necessary prerequisites if the Party was to recover from the pounding it suffered in the Reagan years.

The GOP doesn't seem to have that feedback apparatus in place right now. Look at this year's Senatorial candidates; look at this year's Presidential campaign. For two cycles running, the GOP has shot itself in the foot in its efforts to take control of the Senate; had it chosen sensible Senate candidates in '10, it would have taken the Senate that year. And this year, the same thing is happening again: If the GOP wins the Senate, it will be in spite of themselves and by the skin of their teeth when victory should have been a piece of cake.

And the Presidential race! Look at how far the GOP field had to move to the right just to win the nomination; they ended up with a candidate so utterly unpalatable to Democrats that even if there were large numbers of Obama supporters looking to defect to Romney, he's taken such extreme positions as to be utterly unpalatable to them. Again, as with the Senate, if Romney wins it will be utterly in spite of himself, having taken positions that are senselessly extreme just to satisfy the rank-and-file.

This is the fundamental problem with the GOP: Political logic says it should be closer to the center than it is, but political logic has broken down. The GOP has essentially boxed itself into a position where it can't move in the way that it should to win more support, and that's because the people who benefit most from winning aren't in charge of the Party any more.

Instead, it's now in the hands of ideologues and talking heads. People like Rush Limbaugh have too much power, and such people have no effective stake in a successful Republican Party. Does Limbaugh do better when Republicans are in power? No; in fact, his ratings are probably worse when he has to support the Administration rather than being in the opposition. This is symptomatic of the problem the GOP faces: There's no feedback loop between electoral success and the personal success of the people running the Party.

That's what has to change first: Yet it's notable that this very change is the one the talking heads most fervently oppose. The conservative rabble-rousers who control the rank-and-file through their demagoguery make a point of condemning the Party establishment at every turn, because they realize that the Party leadership will start moving the GOP away from tilting at ideological windmills and start pursuing more sensible, more pragmatic policies, and they're prepared to fight such a change to the death.

So there's the heart of the problem: Before the GOP can change, people who want it to adapt to reality have to have the power to move it in that direction. Until they do, nothing else matters.

[Free South Califas]

ETA: I know this is from a couple pages back, but it's an interesting question. I should also disclaim here that I am by no means representative of Californians; I've been a city dweller for most of my life, and most Californians I've met in the armed forces are from the strongly conservative rural counties.

By the way, unsurprisingly, California tops the charts in much of the military!

I'm under the impression that that's primarily naval and air forces, and in any case, how many US servicemen and women do you honestly believe will open fire on Texans? I mean, you can play and joke about how Texans are silly, stupid, fat, y'know, whatever. But, when your Californian (Or New Yorker, or Oklahoman) soldier is ordered to attack a state he has family in...

It wouldn't come to a war. Hell, I don't know if Texas bases have any real control of their nukes, but MAD may even come into play. (Haha...good one...right?)

I don't think you comprehend the balance of forces in such a war. Nevertheless, as a Californian I must say that I would rather, by a long distance, see Texas secede than shoot a Texan (who is not in the act of committing a personal crime, or of attacking me, etc). California and Texas both have outsized influence in American politics and I think I'd be more comfortable in a world where they were both sovereign, frankly. (ETA: This assumes radical changes in the current balance of power--obviously, a war of secession in either case, in the current context, would be a horrible disaster that nobody wants to see.)

I feel free to speculate wildly on this because it's largely a moot point for me; I favor internationalism, community federalism and industrial democracy, so I prefer sovereignty to function on much lower levels (150 people seems perfect) and for solidarity to function across much greater expanses (you could call me a World Federalist). At any rate, I'm extremely unlikely to join an aggressive military for a capitalist nation accused of severe human rights violations on a massive scale--oh, sure, like Immortal Technique says of Harlem, "I'd turn [my neck of the woods] into a Colombian jungle" if an invading force tried to subjugate my community, and in the case of an international attack I would certainly defend the American republic before watching the nation fall to its knees; but not for a government force unless absolutely necessary. Still, as outright Looney Tunes as the concept of Texas outright seceding is in the current geopolitical context, this thing of Californians shooting Texans is an interesting question. A lot of us have relatives there--I don't, but I have close friends there. That being said, I bet there are plenty of Californians who have successfully executed diverse army, naval and airforce roles that involve bombing nations they have family in, at the very least.

But, as much as the Senate and the Electoral College counterpose California against Texas, they are extremely similar in demographics, certain aspects of culture (especially sports, music and education) and in some ways, even state politics. (Proposition 13 has allowed Republicans from rural districts to hold a hard line on taxes even when they haven't earned much other political power, and forces a bizarrely regressive real estate tax scheme.) San Francisco and Austin seem extremely similar (though I've been to neither), as are San Diego and San Antonio (I've lived in one, stayed in the other). Angelenos can probably relate to both, while Orange County is a near-perfect microcosm of the richest sector of Texas. While doing door-to-door campaigning, I encountered an Orange County man who said "Drill tomorrow at Dana Harbor for all I care!" Meanwhile, some Texans probably see San Diego as commie pinkoville, but our local political talk radio is 100% right-wing, with the left limited to a Pacifica station piped in from L.A.; our newspaper is owned by the largest contributor to the campaign to remove same-sex marriage rights, and have been caught intimidating City Council members on behalf of the NFL team; our Reader gives heavily to anti-choice groups and has been known to run a front-page story decrying the decline of white populations, with most of its college readership picking it up for the weed coupons; the alternative rag, CityBeat, is more or less centrist, paling in comparison to the alternative media in, say, Duluth; etc.

To begin to answer the question, I'd like to see a system closer to proportional representation, and either way I'd like to see the parties break up into more representative ones. I think a free and fair system of representation would see most people split between a slightly bigger Green Party, a massively expanded Liberal or Working Families Party or something in between for the libs, a Moderate/Reform/Independent party that will have moved left to catch the centrists, a Libertarian Party slightly inflated by the defecting left wing of the Republicans, and a massively expanded Conservative Party which would shuffle one or two steps toward the center. The Greens and Libs/WF would coalesce with 'MRIs' to the right and Socialist (SPUSA)/Freedom (FPNY)/Peace & Freedom parties on the left when necessary to form a government, while 'MRI' outfits at different localities will line up with Libertarians, Conservatives or Liberals as political reality dictates. Endless socialist infighting on the SPUSA's left flank would continue to split them between pragmatic (Democratic) Socialists and the various and sundry Revolutionary and Communist parties in even more irrelevant causes, while the hardest of the hardcore right-wingers will probably be split between game-player Conservatives and all-out Constitutionists, Federalists etc.

As for what will happen, I'm guessing the Republicans will be around for a while before splitting up. Moving back to the center seems improbable, as there's too much Koch cash and other classical-liberal-tagged money anchoring the "gold wing" to its rhetorical position. I can't fathom Democrats holding their united front together indefinitely, either; too much electoral power on its left wing is counterposed to the neoliberals, and I suspect you'd see at least a handful of blue nametags swapped for Green and Socialist ones if the political system were more representative of the populace. (Less so if merely more representative of the electorate, but even still, there must be a number of Democratic legislators who feel closer to Dennis Kucinich than Joe Lieberman.) Of course, they'd probably still be forced to caucus with Democrats or their closest replacement (Liberal Party, Working Families Party, plus some kind of 'MRI' bloc) outside of certain San Francisco, Madison and New York districts. Still and all, the Democrats sure look like the stronger and more viable of the two major parties long-term. Who knows how united the electoral left will be after four more years of an outrageous war criminal, drone lord and whistleblowing-retaliator for a president, though?

That being said, kill capitalism, unite the human race etc.

So if the Republican Party collapses, what happens to the American two party system? Does a new center-right party emerge? Do Republicans flock to the, say, Constitution Party? Or do things devolve into a three party system in which the Liberals remain Democrats, a new centrist party forms out of establishment Republicans and moderate Democrats, and the remainder of the right goes to a large third party?

While it would suck in the sense of creating political chaos (and I think is extremely unlikely), I could only hope that the collapse of either of the main parties would cause third parties besides simply being "left, center, right" to come up (constitution, green, etc). Unfortunately, I don't think the political system we have is really setup for multiple parties; I believe we'd need a core reform to get there.

Thankfully, the Constitution provides for just such a reform, namely at a Second Constitutional Convention. I think a couple handfuls of states have laws on the books that would put them in for a new convention if enough other states signed on. Of course, the legislature is unlikely to call for a Convention unless Dems get serious about pushing their party for it, and well, Lawrence Lessig can only do so much.