General Discussion

bhikkhu

(10,789 posts)

82. Why would the repugs split while they are a minority?

Mon May 27, 2013, 11:22 AM

May 2013

They would lose any hope of winning elections. They may be wrong-headed in general, but this has been going on a long time and they've shown every effort toward pragmatically broadening their base. If the party-line repugs split from the hard-right wingers then neither of the groups would stand a chance. Its a nice thought, but they aren't that stupid.

On the other hand, they all think wistfully back to 2000 when Nader took enough of the left-leaning vote to cost our party the election...which is what would happen over and over again if the democratic party split. If you think you feel under-represented now, imagine how it would feel under a succession of bush-repug in the WH, after losing the senate as well.

Not to be too pushy or fatalistic, but that is actually how things work.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

87 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

We Need 3 Major Parties [View all] LuvNewcastle May 2013 OP

They'll become Independents long before they become Democrats. JaneyVee May 2013 #1

Let's hope so. LuvNewcastle May 2013 #3

I completely agree. JaneyVee May 2013 #6

That wouldn't change anything procon May 2013 #28

What we need is one that works randr May 2013 #2

The Tea Party Christian Right will never separate from the business sector of the GOP steelmania75 May 2013 #4

I think there's more of them than that. LuvNewcastle May 2013 #8

Message auto-removed Name removed May 2013 #5

I've thought about this a lot............. socialist_n_TN May 2013 #7

All I know is, we'll definitely have 4 parties if LuvNewcastle May 2013 #10

Well it's inevitable then.......... socialist_n_TN May 2013 #17

some republicans might start finding out they datasuspect May 2013 #13

I don't think they'll change, at least not enough. LuvNewcastle May 2013 #21

You can't stop anyone from joining a party. former9thward May 2013 #9

You can make them very uncomfortable. LuvNewcastle May 2013 #11

Those are elected officials. former9thward May 2013 #15

Message auto-removed Name removed May 2013 #14

That's one thing they do right here in Mississippi. LuvNewcastle May 2013 #16

Message auto-removed Name removed May 2013 #19

I'm taking about the run-off in the primaries. LuvNewcastle May 2013 #23

Message auto-removed Name removed May 2013 #24

They nominee has to win a majority here. LuvNewcastle May 2013 #26

Not sure that's a good idea. Savannahmann May 2013 #12

I'm not talking about dragging the Democratic Party LuvNewcastle May 2013 #18

You're overlooking the vast number of potential voters who are further left, waiting for ... Scuba May 2013 #76

The more choices, the better. bigwillq May 2013 #20

The Winner-take-All system doesn't allow for a 3-party system in our government. BlueCaliDem May 2013 #22

Our liberals are nowhere near as radical as the Teabaggers. LuvNewcastle May 2013 #25

How will that work with the electoral votes? Look at 1968 for instance. graham4anything May 2013 #27

I think the electoral college would favor us. LuvNewcastle May 2013 #29

You dont get it. You need 1 more than 50% of electoral votes to become President. Otherwise... stevenleser May 2013 #51

I suspect three-party systems are inherently unstable. Donald Ian Rankin May 2013 #30

If by "unstable" you mean a greater chance of change, LuvNewcastle May 2013 #31

No, I mean "collapse into two-party systems, and stay that way". N.T. Donald Ian Rankin May 2013 #34

You could be right or you might be wrong. LuvNewcastle May 2013 #36

How many political parties there will be isn't a decision made by any "we". Donald Ian Rankin May 2013 #43

Two party systems are also unstable FarCenter May 2013 #59

On the national scale it seems stable. Donald Ian Rankin May 2013 #60

In the US each party has enjoyed long stretches of control FarCenter May 2013 #66

I think we should have 5, all in the debates Ter May 2013 #32

I agree. LuvNewcastle May 2013 #35

I personally don't think there should be any debates anymore. All they are is gotchas. graham4anything May 2013 #44

Provided its real libertarians LostOne4Ever May 2013 #78

The two corporate parties seized control of the debates woo me with science May 2013 #84

We need complete campaign finance reform. Until we have that and politicians octoberlib May 2013 #33

I'd like to see publicly financed elections, not a penny LuvNewcastle May 2013 #39

+1000000 woo me with science May 2013 #83

Teabaggers and conservatives are different from "republicans"? They are all the same: Republicans. AlinPA May 2013 #37

All of them are our political foes, certainly, but LuvNewcastle May 2013 #40

The political system, by design, defaults to two. nadinbrzezinski May 2013 #38

I don't see why we can't have more than two parties. LuvNewcastle May 2013 #41

It is the winner take all system nadinbrzezinski May 2013 #42

I would really like to see us have a constitutional convention. LuvNewcastle May 2013 #46

The other problem you have nadinbrzezinski May 2013 #48

The Constitution is holy writ to some people. LuvNewcastle May 2013 #53

Exactly, this is a serious problem nadinbrzezinski May 2013 #56

Corporations are only wiling to fund a two party system, so we're shit out of luck...... piratefish08 May 2013 #45

You're probably right, but we've got to try. LuvNewcastle May 2013 #47

Mathematically, three parties doesn't work bhikkhu May 2013 #49

We had 3 candidates in 1992 and 1996. LuvNewcastle May 2013 #50

I was disapointed in Perot's pick of a senile VP, as well as his dropping out/in markiv May 2013 #57

That VP choice was a major mistake. LuvNewcastle May 2013 #64

most nations have more than 2 parties markiv May 2013 #52

Good analogy LuvNewcastle May 2013 #54

A dozen parties where no party had a majority would be a good system bhikkhu May 2013 #68

well, the two party system isnt doing it for me markiv May 2013 #73

3 parties would be worse - that's the point bhikkhu May 2013 #74

I don't think that it's a matter of whether it would be worse or not............ socialist_n_TN May 2013 #80

Why would the repugs split while they are a minority? bhikkhu May 2013 #82

They would split BECAUSE they don't feel represented. Remember... socialist_n_TN May 2013 #87

If there was an OWS party mick063 May 2013 #55

We need 3 Major Parties? bvar22 May 2013 #58

Huey Long had a good story about that. LuvNewcastle May 2013 #63

Thank You! bvar22 May 2013 #65

republicans will never let their bagger 'squidges' (R-word not mine)free,they're not done USING them Sunlei May 2013 #61

That was made impossible by the framers of the Constitution. DevonRex May 2013 #62

those are very good points- "everything republicans do is legal" by sunlei 5/2013 and........ Sunlei May 2013 #67

Exactly. They made slavery legal and ensured it'd be damned hard to get rid of. DevonRex May 2013 #69

We need Instant Runoff Voting Martin Eden May 2013 #70

Read this book: Benton D Struckcheon May 2013 #71

Canada has had three parties or more for 70 years. We are a liberal country. We've applegrove May 2013 #72

The reason the Koch's formed the Tea Party was to drag the Country further right. Scuba May 2013 #75

We have 6 major parties. Democracyinkind May 2013 #77

All good ideas-But fredamae May 2013 #79

The system virtually locks in two parties, with change accommodated through primaries. Jim Lane May 2013 #81

What we need is reform of the system so that non-corporate voices can run and be heard. woo me with science May 2013 #85

Most PEOPLE don't comprehend the simple fact that it was designed DevonRex May 2013 #86