having dangerous idiots in charge is a good thing.

Apparently.

After McCain/Palin and Romney/Ryan, a clear pattern emerges. No one is steering the clown car, it just keeps circling the ring.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]All things in moderation, including moderation.[/center][/font][hr]

They need a crazy Republican Party as part of their "who the #%^* else ya gonna vote for, chumps?" strategy.

They have the house in perpetuity and are on the verge of having the Senate this year. They might not ever get the Presidency but things will never get better then they are now.

If the system were altered to be purely proportional, the GOP as we know it would collapse in a decade.

today's "liberally-biased media" will most certainly crank up the polishing of the turds to a bright, shiny, mirror-like finish.

I remember the "death" of the Repugs ... 2006, 2008, 2012 ...

or the "death" of the Dems ... 2000, 2002, 2004, 2010 ...

I'm still waiting...

One problem is that the Tea Party realizes that it has to be part of the GOP to have any power and the rest of the GOP is not willing to break away. I think that there may be a breaking point at some point but it is going to take some major electoral defeats to force the issue.

probably not much going to put that Zombie down.

Seriously they were being compared to the Whigs just a few years ago. This is starting to sound like another Twain quote "rumors of my death..."

We are probably witnessing both parties on the verge of reinvention, and very possibly the framework for a third party to emerge.

In the wake of 2008, the GOP created "The Tea Party" as a gimmick. It was designed to be a protest to the outcome in 2008, and an advocate for less tax and less government. It developed a life of its own. Flash forward to 2014. The "Tea party" has come to represent a brand of ultra-conservative American that no frequently chastises the GOP for not being conservative enough. They are so conservative that they have forced pro-business moderates like Charlie Crist and Michael Bloomberg out of the Republican party. This wing of the Republican party plays well in rural and some parts of suburban America, but is completely out of step with most urban Americans.

On the other side are the Democrats. A sizable portion of the party supports the President and supports Hillary Clinton in 2016. However, the activist wing that emerged in the wake of the Iraq/Afghanistan wars (and which, ironically, was the driving force behind the election of Barack Obama) wants to convince Elizabeth Warren to run against Hillary Clinton in the primaries. How this plays out is yet to be seen.

Even without Bridgegate, Christie was not a slam dunk for the GOP nomination. Tea Party activity's will point to Mitt Romney as an example of just what happens when you put a "moderate" Republican in front of the electorate. They will argue for someone more in the mold of Ted Cruz or Sarah Palin. Activist Dems are making much the same argument from the other side of the political spectrum for Warren.

What may emerge is a centrist party that would serve as a home for Charlie Crist, Mary Landrieux, Michael Bloomberg, Joe Manchin, et. al. This party would represent people who want to balance budgets and limit government, but who don't want to turn the clock back pre-New Deal. This would also represent people who favor a more economically conservative approach, but who don't buy into the social conservatism embraced by the Palin/Cruz wing of the party.