A Republican Split

I was thinking about the possibility of Huckabee getting the nomination and seeing a Republican from the non-southern dixicrat wing running as a 3rd party or having the party split into two. It would kill both parties for a generation (would be my bet) but do any of you guys think that if the Republican party split, could that pull in Democrats and actually work out to have a viable national 3rd party?

The Republican party comes in three wings it seems. The socials, fiscals, and defense. I don't think the Fiscal/Defense wing would pull in Democrats, alone or together.

Are there structural elements to the system of Presidential electors that would put a third party at a disadvantage? I seem to recall that we'd have to change some laws to get true equality for more than two parties in Presidential elections. Could be wrong on that, though.

Interesting site on the US electoral system for reference.

It's now been 200+ years since George Washington, and we still have a choice between only two candidates for the office of the Presidency of the United States? Our population has grown to 303,174,661 since 1776, yet out of 303,174,661 people, we have to choose between two. Somehow, that just doesn't make sense. Remember, we don't get to vote on who gets their respective party nominations. That's determined by the individual political party dependent upon primary results based on you and I turning out for these events. Yeah, I know you can insert a name on your ballot if you wish to. But come on, who else will know who the "independent" name you wrote down on your ballot so they too, can vote for the same person without the benefit of advertising and political ads? I'd like to see not only one, but perhaps two or more "individual" parties to run against the current two establishments. If you think about it, due to the negative publicity the war in Iraq has garnered upon the Republican party, don't you think one or more from the party would rather run on his (or her) own separated from the party, but can't due to the current structure of electoral voting? I say get Ross Perot out of retirement and others to urge the movement to expand the political voting to more than two candidates.

I think that a split in the GOP would be healthy in the long term for the GOP. We never should have let the klansmen into the party in the first place. This sort of correction is a long time in coming. It is a necessary first step in replacing them with an actual growing demographic that makes for closer ideological alignment anyway: Hispanics. If it weren't for pandering to the plantation vote, Hispanics would be the perfect Republicans.

Both parties are subject to periods of fracture. The democrats have a huge problem dealing with the progressive/liberals versus the conservative libertine wing. They are constantly under the same stresses as the republicans face right now.

The problems we're seeing in the republican party resulted from eight or so years of gluttony and indicate the problems inherent in single-party rule. They might spend some time in the wilderness, but it shouldn't last very long before the democrats piss enough independents off to put republicans back in office.

This isn't the days of a majority parties. The electorate is split into thirds, with the two parties being the "sellers" of governing services and the independents acting as the "buyers."

Paleocon wrote:

I think that a split in the GOP would be healthy in the long term for the GOP. We never should have let the klansmen into the party in the first place. This sort of correction is a long time in coming. It is a necessary first step in replacing them with an actual growing demographic that makes for closer ideological alignment anyway: Hispanics. If it weren't for pandering to the plantation vote, Hispanics would be the perfect Republicans.

Too bad the primary season was all about each Republican candidate claiming they would hunt down, capture, and deport more Hispanics if elected. That's going to come back to bite them in the ass in the general election.

The problems we're seeing in the republican party resulted from eight or so years of gluttony and indicate the problems inherent in single-party rule.

To the contrary, I think the problems are structural and relate to the deliberate change in direction started by the Reaganites and the social conservatives more than twenty years ago. The problems are not related to single-party rule, but are made worse by that. They are not problems of temptation and temporary access to power, but rather are deep-seated flaws in the methods used to gain a large enough constituency to come to power after so long in the wilderness.

The problem with the modern Republican party is not in their surroundings, it's in their leadership and in the policies and practices they've adopted to reach power. That's led to policies that conflict deeply with the Constitution and with previous policies over the last 180 years or so. The amazing thing is that this radical party has not been seriously branded with the label, and so people still think of them as conservative, somehow, when in fact these guys started out in the loony fringe portion of the party. It's as if actual Communists took over the Democrats, but everyone called them Blue Dogs and pretended they were not radicals, simply because they somehow marshalled a lot of votes.

Here's one example that will bend your brain. In under 20 years, the party that celebrated individual freedom and privacy from government intrusion has convinced it's members that it needs to implement a near-Soviet model of daily surveillance of citizens with monitoring that would have Nixon wetting himself with glee. And all this because the heroes of the Cold War, the folks who stood up to a threat that held us 20 minutes from actual nuclear annihilation from forty years without blinking, are so frightened by a bunch of 12th century cave-dwelling radicals that they can't think of any way to keep their previous convictions intact while dealing with these bozos. The party of the patriots now trumpets the message of cowering Americans scanning everything that crosses the border so that we won't suffer 1/10th of what goes in Iraq every day here in an American city.

If the candidate was McCain and it was another election year, yeah, I'd vote for McCain. He's a hawk but I can't see an ex PoW being overzealous in leading us to war. He is also a poster boy for a politician with integrity.

Call me crazy but I think we would be in great shape if he had run as Kerry's VP. I know it wouldn't have happened but the topic is about one in a million hypotheticals.

Mark my words: Huckabee has "Bush disaster all over again" written on his face. He has less worldly and pop culture knowledge and is a little more theocrat. (I only say little here because I think Bush is a lot more Theocrat than people give him credit for)

I always thought the fiscals and the defense went together. Don't fiscals believe that the government should be as small as possible but allow that one of its responsibilities is protection?

LobsterMobster wrote:

I always thought the fiscals and the defense went together. Don't fiscals believe that the government should be as small as possible but allow that one of its responsibilities is protection?

Yes. But, the defense also includes Neo-cons that tend to favour federal government solutions to social or economic problems we face. So, I'd say they split 50/50 between the two.

Robear wrote:

To the contrary, I think the problems are structural and relate to the deliberate change in direction started by the Reaganites and the social conservatives more than twenty years ago.

I won't disagree that the republican party has grown more radical over the past two decades. But politics is about building coalitions and going with what works, and the parties naturally evolve. On the other side of the aisle, the democrats have gone from a party based around workers rights versus capital and the creation of a social safety net to a party of free trade, wall street capitalism, and libertine social rights. I don't know that a democrat in 1960 would have seen that coming.

I always thought the fiscals and the defense went together.

Bush put the lie to this assumption. You are thinking of the original Reagan Republicans.

I don't know that a democrat in 1960 would have seen that coming.

Kind of an unfair date - by '68, the conversion was pretty well under way. I see your point, though. But I believe what happened to the Republican party was a Revolution, rather than an Evolution. Check out Ralph Reed's writings and interviews, he asserts that very thing repeatedly down the years.

OG_slinger wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

I think that a split in the GOP would be healthy in the long term for the GOP. We never should have let the klansmen into the party in the first place. This sort of correction is a long time in coming. It is a necessary first step in replacing them with an actual growing demographic that makes for closer ideological alignment anyway: Hispanics. If it weren't for pandering to the plantation vote, Hispanics would be the perfect Republicans.

Too bad the primary season was all about each Republican candidate claiming they would hunt down, capture, and deport more Hispanics if elected. That's going to come back to bite them in the ass in the general election.

Yup. Talk about dumber than a bag of hammers.

Funkenpants wrote:
Robear wrote:

To the contrary, I think the problems are structural and relate to the deliberate change in direction started by the Reaganites and the social conservatives more than twenty years ago.

I won't disagree that the republican party has grown more radical over the past two decades. But politics is about building coalitions and going with what works, and the parties naturally evolve. On the other side of the aisle, the democrats have gone from a party based around workers rights versus capital and the creation of a social safety net to a party of free trade, wall street capitalism, and libertine social rights. I don't know that a democrat in 1960 would have seen that coming.

I don't think the base of the party believes in that. Maybe I'm wrong.

Robear wrote:

But I believe what happened to the Republican party was a Revolution, rather than an Evolution.

Is it fair to say that it's been the party of capital since at least the early 20th century? It's always been a natural minority party because rich people and business leaders are outnumbered by workers. So they have to make alliances. They used anti-communists in the 1950 to bulk out, and later turned to social issues and bombastic patriotism for the same reason. I would argue against Ralph Reed by suggesting that if he really led a revolution, we would have seen a change in leadership away from the business class. Bush II, for all his religious talk, has done far more the business community than he's done for religious members of the party.

Ulairi wrote:

I don't think the base of the party believes in that. Maybe I'm wrong.

I don't know the answer there. How are we defining the base of a party?

Funkenpants wrote:
Robear wrote:

But I believe what happened to the Republican party was a Revolution, rather than an Evolution.

Is it fair to say that it's been the party of capital since at least the early 20th century? It's always been a natural minority party because rich people and business leaders are outnumbered by workers. So they have to make alliances. They used anti-communists in the 1950 to bulk out, and later turned to social issues and bombastic patriotism for the same reason. I would argue against Ralph Reed by suggesting that if he really led a revolution, we would have seen a change in leadership away from the business class. Bush II, for all his religious talk, has done far more the business community than he's done for religious members of the party.

Ulairi wrote:

I don't think the base of the party believes in that. Maybe I'm wrong.

I don't know the answer there. How are we defining the base of a party?

that's why it is hard to answer. Not the netroots. I don't really know what the base of the Democratic party believes other than we need to nationalize healthcare, withdraw the troops from Iraq, and raise taxes. But, I hear a lot of the support of the wage earner comes from the expense of the wage payer.

I would argue against Ralph Reed by suggesting that if he really led a revolution, we would have seen a change in leadership away from the business class. Bush II, for all his religious talk, has done far more the business community than he's done for religious members of the party.

Hmmm. Good point. So even with Bush, the Evangelical vote has just been used, at the national level? Could be. They have made great inroads in local and state elections, but I think mostly in the red and purple states (which was of course the goal, create enough numbers that the blue states would be overwhelmed).

On the other hand, a lot of those businesses seem to be Evangelical in leadership.

I don't really know what the base of the Democratic party believes other than we need to nationalize healthcare, withdraw the troops from Iraq, and raise taxes.

I think what's more accurate is to say they are looking for universal health care coverage, whether govt or not; an end to our adventure in Iraq; and a desire to balance the budget. You've given the Republican shorthand here. The specifics you used don't follow directly from the Democratic proposals, but rather from fears of them.

I think what's more accurate is to say they are looking for universal health care coverage, whether govt or not; an end to our adventure in Iraq; and a desire to balance the budget. You've given the Republican shorthand here. The specifics you used don't follow directly from the Democratic proposals, but rather from fears of them.

They do not have a desire to balance the budget. It's impossible based on what they want to increase spending, and on how little they say they will raise taxes. We cannot raise taxes a little and then increase our spending even more. Nationalized/Universal health care will be very expensive, they all promise to increase our education spending by a large margin, and many other programs.

How is what I said in correct? I was not passing judgement, just saying that's what they say they'll do.

I'd actually like to see someone say we're going to raise taxes to pay down the debt, not to fund new social programs.

Hillary Clinton:

Lowering taxes for middle class families;
Returning to fiscal responsibility and moving towards balanced budgets.

Note the "pay as you go" approach in the explanation of the latter is not "raise taxes a little and then spend even more", so that point is wrong for her, according to her platform.

Barack Obama:

Q: Would it be a priority of your administration to balance the federal budget every year?

A: Over the last seven years, what we've seen is an economy that's out of balance because of the policies of George Bush and the Republicans in Congress. Not only do we have fiscal problems, but we've got growing inequality. People are working harder for less and they're seeing costs go up. So what I want to do is get the long-term fundamentals right. That means that we are investing in education & infrastructure, structuring fair trade deals, and also ending the war in Iraq. That is money that can be applied at home for critical issues.

Q: So a priority to balance the federal budget, or not?

A: We are not going to be able to dig ourselves ou of that hole in 1 or 2 years. But if we can get on a path of sustained growth, end the war in Iraq, end some of the special interest loopholes and earmarks that have been clogging up the system, then I think we can return to a path of a balanced budget.

And so on through the candidates. Your characterization is wrong, at least according to their claims.

Robear wrote:

Hillary Clinton:

Lowering taxes for middle class families;
Returning to fiscal responsibility and moving towards balanced budgets.

Note the "pay as you go" approach in the explanation of the latter is not "raise taxes a little and then spend even more", so that point is wrong for her, according to her platform.

Barack Obama:

Q: Would it be a priority of your administration to balance the federal budget every year?

A: Over the last seven years, what we've seen is an economy that's out of balance because of the policies of George Bush and the Republicans in Congress. Not only do we have fiscal problems, but we've got growing inequality. People are working harder for less and they're seeing costs go up. So what I want to do is get the long-term fundamentals right. That means that we are investing in education & infrastructure, structuring fair trade deals, and also ending the war in Iraq. That is money that can be applied at home for critical issues.

Q: So a priority to balance the federal budget, or not?

A: We are not going to be able to dig ourselves ou of that hole in 1 or 2 years. But if we can get on a path of sustained growth, end the war in Iraq, end some of the special interest loopholes and earmarks that have been clogging up the system, then I think we can return to a path of a balanced budget.

And so on through the candidates. Your characterization is wrong, at least according to their claims.

I don't trust them. (I don't trust the Republicans either). I can show you every Republican saying the samething, but instead of universal health care, they'll cut taxes more. You wouldn't believe that.

Here is what I think will happen: If a Republican wins he will cut taxes (a little, not like Bush) and continue with the deficit spending. If a Democrat wins, they will raise taxes a little and spend just like the republicans.

I don't say how you can believe that we will be on the path to a balanced budget when both of them want to create a HUGE new entitlement that we do not know the full cost of and we will never know the full cost of, until we're there.

Sadly the one person who probably wont do that doesn't seem like he will get elected (Ron Paul).

I don't think there's any question taxes are going up during the next administration. No republican will be able to cut them through a democratic congress, and the current cuts expire in 2010. That's a very easy way to raise taxes without suffering political harm.

My prediction for 2009: Every single member of congress will say he or she wanted to work something out with the other side on extending the cuts, but that the other side was just too unreasonable.

Edwin wrote:

Sadly the one person who probably wont do that doesn't seem like he will get elected (Ron Paul).

A lot of Ron Paul's support would die if he became the nominee. Most people who give money to him or support him (at least at my school) do it because he's anti-war. But, once the focus turned away from him being an anti-war republican to his issues, they'd freak.

Funkenpants wrote:

I don't think there's any question taxes are going up during the next administration. No republican will be able to cut them through a democratic congress, and the current cuts expire in 2010. That's a very easy way to raise taxes without suffering political harm.

My prediction for 2009: Every single member of congress will say he or she wanted to work something out with the other side on extending the cuts, but that the other side was just too unreasonable.

I'm ok with that. As long as there is the same roadblock on many other issues.

Ulairi wrote:
Edwin wrote:

Sadly the one person who probably wont do that doesn't seem like he will get elected (Ron Paul).

A lot of Ron Paul's support would die if he became the nominee. Most people who give money to him or support him (at least at my school) do it because he's anti-war. But, once the focus turned away from him being an anti-war republican to his issues, they'd freak.

You need to watch the videos I linked to in the other thread yesterday because you couldn't be more wrong with the current supporters.

Edwin wrote:
Ulairi wrote:
Edwin wrote:

Sadly the one person who probably wont do that doesn't seem like he will get elected (Ron Paul).

A lot of Ron Paul's support would die if he became the nominee. Most people who give money to him or support him (at least at my school) do it because he's anti-war. But, once the focus turned away from him being an anti-war republican to his issues, they'd freak.

You need to watch the videos I linked to in the other thread yesterday because you couldn't be more wrong with the current supporters.

That's good news, then. I couldn't support him based on some of his monetary policies (but it's one of those things that he couldn't change) but I'd love to see more people like him in power.

If you were misinformed about that what are the odds of you being misinformed about his monetary policy? Surely it can't hurt to research his positions more.

Ulairi wrote:

I'm ok with that. As long as there is the same roadblock on many other issues.

On any major economic legislation, I am assuming that we'll see the same kind of lobbyist-written bill filled with corporate subsidies and provisions that benefit important interest groups and campaign contributors rather than the public interest.

I know the initial political situation in the US quickly turned into a competition between two major parties, and I know that since then the competition has largely been between two parties. Parties have certainly come and gone, however, as their messages gained and lost popularity. Party messages change in order to grow or to avoid shrinking as well, but it's certainly been a long time since we had a viable option outside Democrats and Republicans or anything approaching an election with a valid third party candidate.

By my clock, it's been 96 years since we had a real third party. Might it be about time?

You know how we can cut taxes and balance the budget? Gay Mexicans. That's how.

Mexosexuals?