Win or lose, the Democratic Party isn’t going anywhere.  The Democratic Party isn’t going fracture, it’s just too hard to get elected in the current system without a big tent.  Especially when demographic changes favor Democrats in the long term, it’s the gop that are hemorrhaging support as their base ages out.  If any party is going to fracture, it’s the gop.

Really though, I wouldn’t expect either party to break up.  We would need to change the current system to something like ranked choice voting if we wanted to give a third party a realistic option.  That won’t happen though as the people in power were elected in the current system and don’t want to change that.  Third parties will continue to be boxed out or absorbed by the big tents for the foreseeable future...

The only way to fix this is having the election in two rounds, which will probably never happen in US. Let's say that Bernie, instead of being pathetic and spineless and accepting being trolled by the democrats, decided to run as independent. I'm pretty sure he would attract a at least 15% of the votes or even beat the democrats (I dont have a source, its anecdotal, it's a baseless assumption, deal with it). Still it wouldn't matter because the republicans would win probably as they would have 50% of the votes. But that could be solved with a second round in the election with the two parties with the most number of votes.

But that would be such a change in the american voting system that this would absolutely never happen.

The other option is for a third party to be big enough to be a menace to the democrats, fracturing the left wing vote, to the point that they would need to be accepted as a faction INSIDE the democrat party but with total liberty and independence inside the party to be able to have a clean fight on the primaries. Which is what I think they are trying to do (I dont have a source, its anecdotal, it's a baseless assumption, deal with it) but have been hijacked by the big guy (pun intended) in the party. I truly believe Bernie had a chance vs Biden on the primaries if they were the only 2 final candidates, but that's not how it works.

If progressives are so interested in changing the voting system, this is what they should have been demanding on the streets as an organized group and in peaceful protests. There is nothing politicians fear more than people protesting. But most likely this will never happen and the subject will come back to discussion only during the next elections.

1. Texas is not as red as a state like SD or AK, but it's definitely red in the sense that the last person who won said state was Jimmy Carter. It simply cannot turn unless the night goes catastrophically for the GOP. Think of TX as the Red version of California. 

2. The GOP, if it does win, won't have taken victory because they are popular, but because they are led by Donald Trump. Boorish as he might be, as soon as he has to leave, then what? Mitt Romney 2.0? The Democratic Party will have essentially taken the next election if this happens, however, they will no longer be able to ignore the left wing element of the party. As you acknowledged, the demographics favor them, but those votes veer far left (or left for the rest of the world) and would essentially force the GOP pleasing Blue Republicans out of the party as their effective demographic advantage shrinks over time. Assuming the DP does not split, then it will end up losing control of the situation and the left wing of the party will take over. In other words, centrism will be axed or the DP will risk what you mentioned: decades of GOP rule because they can't put two sticks together. 

3. The reason they are likely to disband is that they are loosing to a foolish, boorish, clearly inarticulate candidate in an election where everything went for them: like Reagan, they will have lost twice, but unlike them, they will not be able to blame a shrewd candidate for their loss. As a result, the blame game will fall squarely on the party, who will put two and two together and notice the parallels with 2016: running a centrist Obama era candidate. This means if they do not fall apart (this scenario is not intended to be the main one), the party will have no choice but veer left instead of right, especially if they already closed the gap in Red states like TX but found they still lost... which means they aren't center enough and going further right would be... falling in line with the GOP, even if not the Trump GOP, which is going to die in the next election. 

Well, you could make a case they decide to try for a third time, since with Trump gone, the logic that applies to him no longer does, so they could win with a centrist candidate... in which case, your country's future is fucked. 

Trump doesn't need to dissolve the GOP. The party pretty much fell in line and will do so if he wins this one for sure. They want to win, ideology be damned. 

4. Over the last four years, most of the US losses both nationally and internationally have been mostly public relations fiascos, but strictly speaking, I haven't noticed (do note that I can't look close enough/local level to correctly assess this) any major roll back in rights, and any roll back SCOTUS triggers they can trigger regardless of who's in office without expanding the court, which is going to lead to... messy stuff, to say the least. Foreign policy wise, I'm afraid the era of Unipolarity was an anomaly and not something you can "re-enforce" by using force. China is going to fill a vacuum and the US cannot be everywhere all the time. Finite resources and all that. While I do worry about the environment, the fact Biden pretty much shrunk the GND into a neutered replica is only going to be a paliative and not solve issues in the long term. 

Also, when I wrote all this, there seemed to be clear parallels between the US and Spain. Indeed, I can claim to know enough because politics in Spain resemble, right now, what I've seen in the US. The only difference is that when the parties that ruled Spain collapsed and were essentially murdered, the autonomous regions started a collective independence drive that led to overfragmentation of the vote and when the ruling party got its act together, it was able to abuse the first past the post parliament to cling to power by relying on the shared vitriol of these parties towards a common enemy. Had the collapse led to only three parties then we would have a ruling third party or a kingmaker. 

Do be aware that when I posit the three party scenario, I also posit the Electoral College would start looking dumb and the calls for throwing it out would increase. The GOP would see that in a multiparty state, they actually stand a chance of winning normally instead of having to hold onto first past the post mechanics, something that would lead to a GOP push for dismantling it as well. Granted, this notion rests on the idea the GOP is smart enough to realize this. Not sure if they are collectively dull. 

More than not knowing, it's me making a big gamble... one that might indeed need payment from those who are going to have to deal with four more years of crap, but one that could pay up in the long term. I'm looking towards the long term voting trends of most countries right now than I'm at the big picture, but I get that those could be easily confused. 

If they lose, they will have no choice but to reshuffle everything and move left, since the right wing push will be blamed for leading to two consecutive losses in an election that they could've crushed otherwise. Even when they are as capable as they are, they will probably realize the issue is not the adversary and the solution to their problems and woes is to change the message. Move further right or stay where you are. If either seems to be useless, then only the option of moving further left and eventually hoisting the Green New Deal and Medicare for All as part of the party manifesto will seem viable to them. 

Now, the idea of throwing away the EC might seem farfetched, but if Republicans found out a divided Blue party would allow them to win by relying solely on the popular vote, every member there would endorse the abolition of the system. My gamble hinges on this realization: that the Dems are going to gain on them and that if they can segment the vote and win with a simple majority, then they don't need to represent the whole country or win in California: they just need to get the most votes of any party, which is easy if the left and center votes are separated. 

However, I do admit this might start debates most politicians would rather not have, so it does need to be taken as what it is: a gambit. One that involves the Dems losing their nerve and the GOP doing the same when Trump leaves... and coming to the conclusion that the current mechanism is dead. 

This is pretty much my view summed up. The only difference is that I'm banking on the notion the Dems are going to freak out considering they could end up loosing twice to wig man. 

Should this take place, they would divide, which would make the EC useless since now the GOP won't be able to get 270 votes and neither will they. Whoever sits in the office by the end of the ordeal will realie that with the DP segmented and the GOP collapsing, they ought to discard the EC in order for a party to win more easily and once this happens, it's down to who's best. 

The GOP would be convinced by the fact that in a three way race, they could actually win the popular vote, thus pulling their party back together from the brink of collapse due to demographic shifts. 

Yes but they can use the threat as a way to be recognized inside the democrat party. Look at what happened in UK. A lot of people were pissed off with the immigration policies which gave rise to the UKIP party, which with Brexit gave way to the Brexit party. If the conservative party did not agree with Farrage's demands to support Brexit, he would go full on with the Brexit party which would get so many seats that it could, at the end of the day, give the election to the  Labour party as neither the conservatives or the brexiteers would have the majority. This is also why the Lib Dems are a pain in the ass for the Labour party.

I think if the hard left wants to achieve something, finding a great candidate and using as a weapon to create a new party in a way to blackmail the democrat party to give them independence INSIDE the democrat party is their only chance. Because really, I dont see the same happening in the conservative field in US. 

I just post this here as a thing to think about before getting to sure about the results: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/im-here-to-remind-you-that-trump-can-still-win/

This is what I mean... I don't think you know enough about the details...

Do you know what happens if no party gets to 270? The House of Representative votes. But they don't vote individually, they vote by state delegation. Meaning in that the 55 Congressmen in California get one vote. The 6 from North and South Dakota get two.

This is way way way better for the GOP. In 2016, they won 30 states. In 2012, Romney lost by 126 electoral votes, but would have only been 1 state away from winning if there was a vote by delegation.

And with the democrats splitting the vote in every congressional district, it gets worse. If the New Democratic party takes just ten percent of the vote from the old one, then literally every swing district goes to the Republican party. In 2016, this means that Trump effectively would have won the 30 states he won, plus at least Virginia, Minnesota, Washington,  and Nevada. Maine would be a deadlock.

That means that Trump would have won 34 state delegations, and Hilary and a hypothetical third candidate would have had 16 states (counting DC) combined, at best, with one deadlocked.

If instead the two new parties split the democratic vote 50-50, then the GOP would have won California and New York, and I think literally all 5 delegations. Maybe the Democrats could hang on in DC and Vermont. 

What you're proposing is a GOP wet dream.

Then how come a democratic state has gotten rid of first past the post and voted a renked choice voting system in place, which then the Republican Party protested against, go it removed, only to see it reinstated for this election? Yes, that's what happened in Maine. The Maine Republican Party even tried to get rid of it through the supreme court just a couple days ago.

Republicans only have a chance in the election due to the winner-takes-all system, so don't expect any Republican to ever want to get rid of it, Trump included. Even more so considering that without it, he would have lost the election. And you can see above what lengths they go to keep first past the post in place. 

About your last sentence: Instead of the DSA, expect the People's Party, which had their convention in August 30, to run at the election in some form.

I don’t think you are painting a realistic picture of what would happen if the Democrats fractured.  Take a look at what happened when Theodore Roosevelt fractured the Republicans with the bull moose party.  How did that work out for them?

Alrighty, tomorrow's election day, so it's time for my final prediction of the outcome.

About a month ago, I predicted the electoral college breakdown would look like this. I'm currently predicting an expanded map for Biden. That expanded map is below.

You will notice that I've moved Iowa into Trump's column, but also Georgia and my home state of Texas into Biden's and also given Biden the win in Nebraska's 2nd District this time around. Florida is my riskiest prediction here because it has a history of voting more Republican than polls predict, but I'm basing my forecast here on the combination of Biden's lead in the polls there and record voter turnout in the state, plus the fact that older voters, disproportionately represented in Florida, are heavily leaning toward Biden overall so far. Iowa I give to Trump based on a recent change in the polls favoring him and also based on low turnout so far in that particular state, mirroring the low turnout we saw almost uniquely in Iowa's Democratic caucus. Texas and Georgia, in contrast, have histories in 2016 and 2018 of voting more Democratic than the polls suggest they will, and Biden leads in the polls in Georgia at present and is trailing Trump by just 1.2% in the polling average in Texas, which is well below the average 3.4% margin by which polls in the last two elections have underestimated Democratic performance in this state (plus turnout in Texas already exceeds 100% of 2016 levels even now before election day). I've noticed that evangelical Christian support for Trump has softened here a bit as well.

For a look at how the polling averages in 2016 and 2018 have under/overestimated Republican and Democratic performance on a state-by-state, region-by-region basis, check out this link. Also, this video includes a noteable look at how the same thing vis-a-vis the overall national popular vote in presidential elections going back to 2000, which you'll notice reveals that 2016 was the exception to the rule; the rule being that it's DEMOCRATIC performance that the polls typically underestimate.

I also predict that Democrats will win back the Senate, picking up seats in Maine, North Carolina, Georgia, Colorado, Arizona, and possibly Montana, while losing Doug Jones's seat in Alabama.