Arnold cites Karl Smith's "demographic data that support my last-stand-of-the-WORST pre-mortem of the election." But even on a naive extrapolation of Karl's data, this "last stand" will last decades:Democrats only won the two youngest age brackets. In twenty years, they'll be in their thirties and forties - and by Arnold's logic, their elders in their fifties, sixties, seventies, and beyond will still be Republicans. And who knows how new young voters will align themselves in the 2030s? For all we know, we'll see a re-run of the 1980s, when young Republicans horrified their boomer parents.
I freely admit that one-party democracy is possible. I've blogged on one-party democracies extensively in the past (here, here, and here for starters), and even been quoted on the matter by the Law Minister of Singapore. But virtually all examples come from polities with relatively small and highly homogeneous populations. The odds of one-party democracy arriving in a diverse, divided nation of 300 million people are remote indeed.
I've bet against it before, and I'll bet against it again. In fact, I'll happily repeat my bet with Arnold for any future ten year period in American politics he cares to name.
http://econlog.econlib.org
