According to The New York Times, “… a newly triumphant Republican president” is “once again in the headlines.”

What will it take to break “the present national divide, between the narrow but solid Republican majority and a Democratic party seemingly trapped in second place,” asks the Times. That pattern “may be hardening” into one “that will persist for years to come.” Perhaps breaking the divide will require “an act of God,” the Times writes.

The article quotes a number of eminent historians and political scientists who predict a new era of enduring Republican electoral dominance. In the words of one: “The Republicans are basically unchecked … There is no check in the federal government and no check in the world. They have an unfettered playing field.”

This isn’t a recent take on the 2024 election. The quote comes from 2004, when George W. Bush won reelection by 2.4 percentage points, a slightly larger margin than Donald Trump had on Nov. 12, 2024, over Kamala Harris in the election results.

Of course, none of these predictions came to pass. The supposed enduring Republican majority evaporated as Hurricane Katrina, the ongoing war in Iraq and the financial crisis caused President Bush’s popularity to plummet. As a result, Democrats retook the House and the Senate in 2006, and Barack Obama won the presidency in 2008.

Despite the lessons of this history, a new round of doomsayers are ready to write the Democrats’ obituary in 2024. According to one journalist, “Democrats are a lost party. Come January, they’ll have scant power in the federal government, and shriveling clout in the courts and states.”

The Washington Post reports, “More broadly, many Democrats view their defeat – with Trump making inroads with Latinos, first-time voters, and lower- and middle-income households, according to preliminary exit polls – not just as a series of tactical campaign blunders, but as evidence of a shattered party with a brand in shambles.”

I believe – as the author of a book about how political parties respond to election defeats, and as the example of 2004 shows – it’s easy to overstate the enduring impact of an election. Unforeseen events arise that alter the political landscape in unpredictable ways. The party in power often makes mistakes. New candidates emerge to energize and inspire the defeated party.

Zigging and zagging

The parties themselves are often incapable of figuring out the best way forward.

Following Mitt Romney’s loss in the 2012 presidential election, the Republican National Committee commissioned what it called an “autopsy” to determine how the party should move forward. The report urged Republicans to become more inclusive to women, young people, Asians, Latinos and gay Americans by softening their tone on immigration and social issues. The report was a thoughtful and thorough examination of the problems confronting the GOP.

Nonetheless, in 2016 Donald Trump took the party in exactly the opposite direction and ended up winning anyway.

I’d be the last person to try to predict the 2028 election, but there are a number of reasons to be skeptical of doom and gloom scenarios for the Democratic Party.

First, the 2024 election was extremely close. Once all the votes are counted, it will probably end up being the closest popular vote contest since 2000. In addition, it’s possible that Donald Trump will fall below 50% of the popular vote. Any loss is difficult, but this is hardly the 49-state drubbing that Democrats endured against Ronald Reagan in 1984.

In addition, the 2024 results fall pretty close to the outcome predicted by election models that were based on economic fundamentals. This suggests that voters were registering dissatisfaction with poor economic conditions rather than offering a wholesale rejection of the Democratic ideology.

And even if the public has become less enamored of liberal governance over the past four years, this is both natural and temporary. Political scientists have long observed the thermostatic nature of American politics. That’s a fancy way of saying that when a Republican occupies the White House, the public becomes more liberal. Conversely, under Democratic presidents, the American people become more conservative. Given this pattern, it seems very likely that in four years the public will be in a more liberal mood.

Self-reflection is good

Democrats should also remember that Donald Trump has been a uniquely polarizing and unpopular figure in American politics.

Despite a generally strong economy during his first term in office, he was never able to rise above a 50% approval rating. Trump did himself no favors in this regard. As political scientists John Sides, Chris Tausanovitch and Lynn Vavreck point out in their book on the 2020 election, on issue after issue during his first term, Trump rejected policies that the majority of Americans supported and instead chose those that aligned only with his Republican base. There seems to be little reason to think that Trump will govern any differently in his next term.

Since Trump can’t run again in 2028, that also means that Democrats will likely face a better political environment in 2028. Since 1900, the out-party (the party that doesn’t control the White House) has won eight of the 11 elections without an incumbent president on the ballot. In fact, the last time the out-party failed to defeat a nonincumbent was nearly 40 years ago when Republican George H.W. Bush defeated Democrat Michael Dukakis in 1988.

None of this guarantees a Democratic victory in 2028. Most importantly, a strong economy might be enough to lift the GOP to victory in 2028.

Nor should the Democrats just assume that everything will be fine. Self-reflection is good for political parties as well as individuals.

Still, the lesson of history is that it’s a good idea for Democrats to resist the temptation to catastrophize their loss. Instead, they might consider using the Serenity Prayer as a guide for the next four years: “Give us the serenity to accept the things that can’t be changed, the courage to change the things that can be changed, and the wisdom to know the difference.”

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.