What's The Chances Of A Split-Off 3rd Party With The Republican's Being The Ones Split?

[ThomWV]

Listening to C-Span this morning it was interesting to note how many self-identified Republican callers mentioned how receptive they would be to a 3rd party. Made me wonder ...

[liberal N proud]

1. The members of the republicon part are the most loyal

They will follow their leaders to the end regardless of what HE says or does.
If there were ever a party split it would be the Democrats because liberals don't listen to one voice in the first place.

[bryant69]

4. I don't agree

I do agree that the Republicans worship power to certain degree, but I don't think that completely blinds them to their other concerns. In particular the debate over Immigration and the lukewarm response to their candidates has to suggest that they are not completely under the heel of their party elite.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[proud2BlibKansan]

2. I can definitely see that happening to the Dem party

I meet more disillusioned Dems all the time.

[EstimatedProphet]

3. What would they split off into?

The only thing I could see would be the Evil Party and the Moderately Evil Party.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

5. If Giulliani gets the nomination - a very good chance. And, Bloomberg is making hints.

Something like a Bloomberg/Lieberman ticket is a possibility to go after the "middle" if the Repugs go to the right and the Dems go (hopefully) to the left.

[napi21]

7. I heard it was a possible Blomburg/Hagel ticket.

And yes, I do see that as a possibility. There are a lot of Pubs who are very very upset with the wild spending of the last 6 years, and the failure in Iraq. I don'/t know too much about Bloomburg, but he at least sounds rational when I see him on TV, and Hagel is one of the few Pubs who are strongly AGAINST the war!

[radfringe]

6. chances of a 3rd party winning are zero to nothing...but

if someone were to appear who says the right things, he could peel off enough votes to shake things up

I'm remembering that Perot received 17%-19% of the vote back in 1992, and this was after his I'm running-I'm not running-I'm running game. Most of the Perot voters were disgruntled republics who were disgusted by poppy bush and independents who didn't like poppy or bubba

[unpossibles]

8. I think it's possible but not likely any time soon

the ones I know who claim to be third party (what I call the Republitarians) are all still loyalists at heart. They are following the lead of people like O'Reilly in an attempt to distance themselves from Bush by claiming that he has ruined the Republican Party or that he's not a real conservative. They tend to ignore the fact that a short while ago they defended and/or ignored everything he did wrong and my opinion that Bush's policies are the same bunch of voodoo Reagan crap with Big Spending and little actual conservative values.

I used to be pretty neutral about parties, in that I always try to see it as "to each their own." Lately, however, I have gotten so fed up with the double talk BS from the Right Wing that I can't stand it.

I guess Bush really is a unificator after all: he's managed to get most of America and the world to hate his guts. Heckuva job, Georgie.

[Warpy]

9. I've been half expecting the fundies to split off for some time

After all, there have been GOP administrations pledging to ban abortion now for 22 years and abortion is still mostly legal. The fulminating antiabortionists have got to be getting a clue at some point that the party isn't interested in decreasing the pool of cheaper labor (women) by forcing every unwanted pregnancy to term. Since that is THE issue that caused all the glory shouters and tongue speakers to support that party in the first place, their split is inevitable. The only question is will it be sooner or later.

I've wondered from time to time why ex judge Roy Moore hasn't started the new party, himself. He really looked like he was about to do so in 2004.

I think the only thing binding the fundy faithful to the rich man's party now is the flow of tax dollars into church coffers with no accountability required for how they are used. The only question is how long money will trump fanaticism.

[PATRICK]

10. All they need

is what they don't have. Their party or movement in all its patchwork in-glory is entirely gutted of that kind of leadership potential. Not even a whimper. Bloomberg hasn't been a repug long enough and is too rich to get the scene- and he is not conservative enough and is from the wrong state.

The Dems had a principled foe once upon a time in Anderson. George Wallace did it for conservative Dems in the south as well. Such men would cripple the main GOP schmo today and provide their entire voting bloc of long denied leadership and choice. All they have not is a prematurely decadent dynasty, as nasty and oppressive to its own party as much as it has bungled into full corruption and decline. If you think the Dems are too polite by far(as I do) consider the even more ruinous state of the party of the King under whose aegis all this pigeons have come to roost and can fly no more.

They smeared and ruined Perot and Buchanan and the Independence party and turn it into a another tool for fraud for their benefit. All their stellar leaders are corrupt, disliked or indicted or defeated. The bloated on disastrous success simply don't want to embarrass themselves by trying to see their feet on the scales anymore. The ordinary GOP people have never mattered to the prime beneficiaries of the party and are never to be considered lest that perspective threaten to change. Democracy within the GOP is not feared by the rulers, it is unimaginable.

[alkaline9]

11. Best bet would be Bloomberg/Colbert...lol

I mean the money would be a non issue with Bloomberg. They both have general appeal among both repubs and dems. Colbert has appeal because they are too stupid to realize he is a parody, while Bloomberg has appeal because he has done with NYC what Ghouliani wishes he could have done (as well as his police support of the Repub national convention).

I do agree that it is more likely a Dem third party though. I would be curious to see if Bloomberg would potentially sign on as a VP candidate for someone like Gore though?!? That would draw more dem vote than repub, but maybe enough on both sides to call a 3rd party victor?