They have made themselves the party of the rich white racist! Which they now can never shake!

You're wrong. After all, pre-1960, the Democrats were the party of the poor white racist. Parties can re-invent themselves.

Once the current progressive agenda is achieved - gay marriage, the end of attempts to outlaw abortion, some better degree of separation of church and state - the leadership of the current progressive party will stagnate, becoming the new social conservatives. The next set of progressive ideals will likely be championed by the opposition party - the Republicans or their heirs. They will have fallen out of power as the current progressive ideals really took hold, and will be seeking a new way to regain power. Becoming the new progressives will do that for them.

Prediction: The first President who is one of the two following things will be Republican: Gay, or a member of a minority religion (my guess is Muslim).

Ridiculous. And I'm no Republican. The pendulum is always swinging. They'll be back in the saddle at some point in the not-to-distant future.

Radiotone:

Ridiculous. And I'm no Republican. The pendulum is always swinging. They'll be back in the saddle at some point in the not-to-distant future.

Agreed. To believe that they are done gone kaput is very naive. After all wasn't it the Democrats who fell into the same position in 1968 when Nixon took the White house with the promise of "Change" (see how many times that word ins't used during a campaign in the past 200 years) Republicans raved that the Democratic party was dead back then too, and accept for Carter from 1976-1980, they pertty much were. Between 1968 to 1992 the republicans held the White house for 20 of 24 years listed. What this could mean is the start of a successful run for the Democrats for the next 20-24 years of it could just be a short one like the JFK/LBJ administrations of the 60's I'd say the next two years will give us an idea as to what direction Obama is taking us.

Well Not Too distant right now looks like 3-4 POTUS election cycles. That's pretty long in the wilderness.

degsme:

Well Not Too distant right now looks like 3-4 POTUS election cycles. That's pretty long in the wilderness.

So what your saying is 12-16 years or more. How do you get this number?

I'm just not that optimistic that muh Dems are going to hang on that long. Could happen, but I've been beaten down so long that kind of optimism is just alien to me.

But what defeats them...I can't imagine it being as right-wing and as big a failure as what we just lived through with Bush-Cheney-DeLay.

Mid-term elections are often punishing for the party in power, and even if we get two Obama administrations and manage to win the POTUS election after that, Congress will go back and forth a little.

I get 12-16 years from a combination of factors (though it could be as long as 20 years).

1. Historically the appeal of the GOP's punitive policies seems to have a resurgence about every 12-20 years: 1998, 1980, 1968, 1953... It seems it takes this long for the voting public to forget how disasterous these policies are economically
2. Studies show that how you vote in your first election is a strong predictor for how you vote in the future. The GOP just lost the 16-26yo vote catastrophically. They have to wait 12-16 years before they have a chance to address a new voting generation. Meanwhile the curret 16-26yo are moving into their most politically active years as the core GOP voters are moving into retirement and death
3. The mechanics of the ideas. Looking at the discussion threads among the GOP intelligensia
1. 2012 will be an attempt to "get back to Regan Basics" - not recognizing that Reagan's basic were what GWB's administration implemented.
2. 2016 will be the first "open" race - except that if Obama does a 1/2 assed job, the GOP will be running with new and untried candidates with an untried base
3. 2020 then is the earliest the GOP has a chance at winning the WH and that requires Obama's successor to screw up the first term. Otherwise
4. 2024 is when the GOP will take back the WH because the public will have forgotten about the disasters of GWB and will be tired of a Dem WH

3 different factors all pointing to the same 12-16 year minimum

degsme:

I get 12-16 years from a combination of factors (though it could be as long as 20 years).

1. Historically the appeal of the GOP's punitive policies seems to have a resurgence about every 12-20 years: 1998, 1980, 1968, 1953... It seems it takes this long for the voting public to forget how disasterous these policies are economically
2. Studies show that how you vote in your first election is a strong predictor for how you vote in the future. The GOP just lost the 16-26yo vote catastrophically. They have to wait 12-16 years before they have a chance to address a new voting generation. Meanwhile the curret 16-26yo are moving into their most politically active years as the core GOP voters are moving into retirement and death
3. The mechanics of the ideas. Looking at the discussion threads among the GOP intelligensia
1. 2012 will be an attempt to "get back to Regan Basics" - not recognizing that Reagan's basic were what GWB's administration implemented.
2. 2016 will be the first "open" race - except that if Obama does a 1/2 assed job, the GOP will be running with new and untried candidates with an untried base
3. 2020 then is the earliest the GOP has a chance at winning the WH and that requires Obama's successor to screw up the first term. Otherwise
4. 2024 is when the GOP will take back the WH because the public will have forgotten about the disasters of GWB and will be tired of a Dem WH

3 different factors all pointing to the same 12-16 year minimum

Democrats tend to collapse within as well. They haven't held the oval office more than 8 yeasrs since the FDR/ Truman days. They seem to kill themselves. Johnson looked unstoppable back in 68 and 4 yaers later he looked ready to self destruct. Carter was just filling in the blank between the Nixon/Ford era and the Reagan/Bush years, and Clinton who seemed to own the oval office through his term and revive the party turned out to be Gores achilies heal in the 2000 election. All Obama really needs to grab another term is "stay on course without any major sidetracks" The economy will eventually fix itself (with or without gov't interference) troops will be returning from Iraq in 2011 (if not earlier). Pending any big unpopular shift in his policies or any Bill Clinton type scandals he would easily do eight years

Yes Johnson looked unstoppable. But after he stepped down, Bobby Kennedy WAS unstoppable short of assasaination. That would have been 12 years.

Gore DID win in 2000 - both the popular vote, and had FL been fully recounted, the EC as well.

So your assertion

"They haven't held the oval office more than 8 yeasrs since the FDR/ Truman days."

Is more an artifact of some very unusuall circumstances rather than any inherent predeliction for self-destruction.

degsme:

Yes Johnson looked unstoppable. But after he stepped down, Bobby Kennedy WAS unstoppable short of assasaination. That would have been 12 years.

Gore DID win in 2000 - both the popular vote, and had FL been fully recounted, the EC as well.

So your assertion

"They haven't held the oval office more than 8 yeasrs since the FDR/ Truman days."

Is more an artifact of some very unusuall circumstances rather than any inherent predeliction for self-destruction.

If it's unusual circumstances then both parties failure would fall upon that excuse.

GWB: 9/11/ Fannie & Fredie Messenomics

Clinton: Monica Lexinski / Internet bubble

George HW Bush: Voodo economics / gulf War

Reagan: Iran Contra, reganomics

Carter: Iran hostages/ Infllation & gas lines

Ford: Richard Nixon pardon

Nixon: WaterGate

Johnson: Vietnam

JFK: Cuba

IKE: U2 / Space Race

Truman: Korea

It’s kind of naive to say all past democrat presidents are victims of unusual circumstances and republicans are inherent predilections to self destruction. To say that Bobby Kennedy would have ensured 12 years of democratic rule is pretty slim at best as well. True he was gaining popularity in California, but at that same time the Democratic Party was so splintered that it would have been more likely that the winner would still go to Richard Nixon. Both Wallace and Kennedy would have split the party (which is what happened any way) and tricky would have run with it any way. If that is the general thinking then to put perspectives fair who's to say that George Herbert walker Bush would not have won re-election if Ross Perot had not broken away from the republican party and ran on his own which split the vote in 1992.

It's way too early to say this. For one thing, the Democrats used to be the party of the rich white racist, and they've pretty well shook that.

But it's not out of the question that we could be seeing the beginning of a Republican permanent destruction. Parties do come and go in the US, if slowly. The Repubs didn't exist until the 1850s.

Factors in favor of Repub destruction
1. They are in a very tight, and shrinking, space. They are becoming the party of the South and Appalachia. At the same time, the Democrats are making incursions into the suburbs.
2. Minority votes are growing; white votes are not.
3. They have no up and comers that are currently popular outside of that self-imposed South/Appalachia political ghetto.
4. Ideologically, they are boxed into an anti-government, socially conservative position that doesn't hold as much power now that there is no external socialist threat (for the anti-government thing) and doesn't represent the increasing openness and tolerance of average Americans outside of Appalachia (on the social conservative thing).

Factors against
1. Come on. We've had two parties since the 1850s. Why should one of them self-destruct now?
2. What's to stop them from changing. The Dems did it during the civil rights movement. Once the GOP finishes post-election moping, why not start moving on some of their policies. The Tories did it.
3. What if Barack Obama is just a really lousy president. I love him and think he'll be great, but failure is always an option. If the Democrats overreach legislatively and Obama is viewed as a failure, all those blue states will be red again in 2012 or 2016.

"unusual circumstances" does not include consequences of your own personal actions. Robert Kennedy did not hire nor goad Sirhan Sirhan into killing him.

Gore did not cause the GOP appointees on the SCOTUS to rule contrary to every ruling they had previously made in their careers.

OTOH

• GWB: 9/11/ Fannie & Fredie Messenomics - GWB supported the GOP sponsored and paased Gramm-Leach-Bliley deregulation and appointed individuals HOSTILE to market regulation to the Chairmanships of both the SEC and CFTC Furthermore the market implosion was a direct consequence of GLB and the deregulation and had nothing to do with FNMA or FMAC. So no, this was not an "unusual circumstance".
• Clinton: Monica Lexinski / Internet bubble - Lewinski was not "unusual" nor did it affect Clinton's re-election prospects so that isn't germane. As for the Internet "bubble" - that had little to do with the economic growth during the Clinton era. The Clinton era growth was a combination of the fruition of JFK's investments in NASA, and Clinton's efforts in knocking $1 billion off the national debt as well as being the first POTUS since Ike to shrink the size of Government. Again, neither is a "unusual circumstance" WRT re-election. Clinton served a full 2 terms
• George HW Bush: Voodo economics / gulf War - Voodoo Economics and Deficit spending driving a recession as well as GOP sponsored Banking deregulation, and GOP appointed lax regulatory oversight drove the recession. IOW it was the consequence of GOP policies, not any particular outside random event that killed GHWB's re-election bid.
• Reagan: Iran Contra, reganomics - Iran Contra and the negative consequences of Reaganomics only became visible after his re-election. IOW there was no impact and hence no "random impacts". Furthermore both Iran Contra and Voodoo economics were the consequence of GOP policies. IOW it wasn't random no matter what. Not like some wack-case shooting you or the Dems conspiring to impeach Reagan.
• Carter: Iran hostages/ Infllation & gas lines - Actually Gas Lines were under Nixon/Ford. Carter's Iran hostage crisis was somewhat a random event in as much as it was the consequence of GOP Ike's Foreign Policy action to overthrow a democratic government in Iran and replace it with the SAVAK weilding Peacock Throne. OTOH, Carter never did ride herd on the treasonous Joint Chiefs who screwed up the Hostage rescue due to infighting. And hence this was a self-inflicted wound.
• Ford: Richard Nixon pardon - self inflicted wound
• Nixon: WaterGate - self inflicted wound
• Johnson: Vietnam - self inflicted wound
• JFK: Cuba - irrelevant. JFK would have been re-elected regardless of Cuba
• IKE: U2 / Space Race - Ike was re-elected. It wasn't a factor
• Truman: Korea - MacArthur was a self-inflicted wound. That said, Truman beat Dewey.

your point?

It’s kind of naive to say all past democrat presidents are victims of unusual circumstances and republicans are inherent predilections to self destruction

No one made that claim. The claim was that Gore indisputably won both the popular vote (iow the GOP did NOT carry the will of the people) and had there been a statewide recount, would have won the FL EC and the EC as a whole. Instead the recount was adjudicated not only by a majority GOP appointed SCOTUS, but one in which MOST of the sitting GOP SCOTUS candidates owed their appointnments to the father of one of the candidates. THAT IS unusual.

Bobby Kennedy being assassainated IS unusual. Had Kennedy lived, his polls were a landslide against Tricky Dick. The Dems only splintered AFTER RFK's assassaination.

As for Perot, - Perot voters were 60:40 GOP voters. Remove Perot and Clinton STILL wins. WJC has a smaller margin but gets a majoritarian mandate. Sorry, the history doesn't support your claims WRT GHWB.