I don't know if this editorial is correct, but it sounds about right to me.

...we may well see one of the bloodiest intraparty fights since the Whigs imploded 150 years ago.

It's somehow appropriate, albeit ironic that Marx' prediction about failing of its own internal contradictions seems to be coming true not for capitalism, but first for communism and now, for the Democratic Party.

I had the same thought last week. He obviously didn't steal it from me, which means two people thought of it independently.

Which means we're probably both wrong.

Didn't we hear the same thing about the Republican party in 1996 after Gingrich's failure? Both parties have an inherent stability because they are the only substantial alternative to each other, are well organized in every state (with some government granted competitive advantages), and have a huge income stream from their current political power which third parties could access *only* after gaining significant political power (the big money follows political success).

"(the big money follows political success)"

But that describes an inherently unstable system -- as one party becomes more successful, it attracts more money and becomes even more successful, which attracts more money...

I have a lot more to say about this but I'll do it on my own blog.

(But that describes an inherently unstable system -- as one party becomes more successful, it attracts more money and becomes even more successful, which attracts more money...

One party can't keep all groups under the same tent. There's too much competition for the same resources and something is going to attract all the people disenchanted with the sole party. However, two parties have been doing that since the begining of the Civil War. Ie, the competition for political resources acts as a devisive "force" to break up political groups, but the advantages mentioned above would probably limit parties with real power to less than four. A lot of this depends on whether regional politics strengthen or not. Ie, a situation where there are a couple of dominant parties per state, but not the same two parties.

In summary, I can see situations where third parties gain considerable strength, but the fact that this hasn't happened in roughly 140 years, indicates to me that something stabalizes the current two party situation. I think I've hit on the more significant reasons why that is so.

It's also partly because the major parties have rigged the system to keep themselves in power (e.g., not allowing minor parties into debates, having the campaign laws favor major party fundraising, etc.).