News US Republican candidates 2016 discussion

[beancounter]

I don't think we'd be left with one party. I think we would end up with multiple parties.

But one viable party.

If the Republican party breaks into multiple pieces, none of those pieces will ever get enough votes individually to win an election vs. the Democratic party.

I think there is at least a few examples of this around the world, where there is one dominant party, and multiple minor parties.

 

[Wolfie]

While I have no love for the Republican party, a one party gov't is far more dangerous in the long run.

If the GOP really implodes (and I don't think it will), we'll be left with one viable party. Nothing good ever comes of that...

Then we need to make other parties viable. We could start with demanding they be invited to the debates.

Gary Johnson will be on the libertarian ballot in all 50 states, in case anyone is interested. I'm not telling anyone who to vote for. Just saying an alternative will be on the ballot.

 

[Mischief]

I think that, if the Republican party were to splinter, the Democrats would likely also splinter. We're already seeing the potential for that this election season. I think that the liberal wing of the Democrats would be emboldened, not just by the Sanders candidacy, but also by the (at this point prospective) splintering of the GOP.

 

[Andy_T]

Yes, that was my thought as well, that if the Republicans would splinter, this would also allow different fractions within the Democratic party to consider doing their own thing...

 

[FortyTwo]

I used to be ambivalent toward Louis CK until I found a video of his one show where the entire joke was just that he said the word '******' over and over and made fun of gay men. Someone who thinks that is humor is not someone I want to listen to.

Also: the idea that we should elect a conservative to "balance" Obama's administration is beyond absurd. An entirely conservative Congress plus a liberal President is already unbalanced enough. An entirely conservative Congress plus a conservative President is tipping the scale to a terrifying degree.

 

[Andy_T]

Without words....

From: Trump Supporters Raise Right Hands to Pledge Support. The Photos Are Terrifying.

 

[Mischief]

Woah.

 

[beancounter]

Yes, that was my thought as well, that if the Republicans would splinter, this would also allow different fractions within the Democratic party to consider doing their own thing...

I don't think the differences within the democratic party have come anywhere close to reaching "critical mass" that would result in a splinter. Despite divergent views, the different"factions" within democratic party would see a great opportunity to dominate the government for years to come, and would make the choice to reconcile rater than split.

For those at the top of the party, politics is about strategy and tactics. it has nothing to do with values.

 

[beancounter]

Yea, a few people stuck their arm outward, but most just raised their hand.

This is a good example of how propaganda works. Take a few extreme examples and extrapolate all sorts of meaning.

Without words....

From: Trump Supporters Raise Right Hands to Pledge Support. The Photos Are Terrifying.

 

[ledboots]

Without words....

From: Trump Supporters Raise Right Hands to Pledge Support. The Photos Are Terrifying.

Not defending Trump, as he probably did it on purpose to get more press, but from the Slate link:

" Saturday, Donald Trump led a rally of supporters to raise their right hands and take a pledge that they would vote for him. “Let’s do a pledge. Who likes me in this room?” Trump asked the crowd at a rally in Orlando, Florida, which was frequently interrupted by protesters. “I’ve never done this before. Can I have a pledge? A swearing? Raise your right hand.”"

 

[Capstan]

I don't think the differences within the democratic party have come anywhere close to reaching "critical mass" that would result in a splinter. Despite divergent views, the different"factions" within democratic party would see a great opportunity to dominate the government for years to come, and would make the choice to reconcile rater than split.

For those at the top of the party, politics is about strategy and tactics. it has nothing to do with values.

^ I agree with this. If the GOP was to splinter, the Democrats would emerge as the "alpha" party. They would essentially take over the position the Republicans had held; they would become the party of the "status quo." For many years, the Democrats have been leaning more and more toward conservatism. This would clinch it for them. But very quickly, a brand new, more liberal- more progressive- party would be formed, to challenge them. What Republicans are left would join the Democrats, while many Democrats would defect to the new party on the left. Nothing would essentially change, except the names of the parties, plus there would be an overall political shift back toward center, to counteract the extreme leaning to the right that's been growing for the last 50-years or so.

But I think the GOP breaking apart is still a pretty big "if" at this point, although their refusal to compromise on anything does rather signal that maybe it's time for them to go.

 

[FortyTwo]

^ I agree with this. If the GOP was to splinter, the Democrats would emerge as the "alpha" party. They would essentially take over the position the Republicans had held; they would become the party of the "status quo." For many years, the Democrats have been leaning more and more toward conservatism. This would clinch it for them. But very quickly, a brand new, more liberal- more progressive- party would be formed, to challenge them. What Republicans are left would join the Democrats, while many Democrats would defect to the new party on the left. Nothing would essentially change, except the names of the parties, plus there would be an overall political shift back toward center, to counteract the extreme leaning to the right that's been growing for the last 50-years or so.

But I think the GOP breaking apart is still a pretty big "if" at this point, although their refusal to compromise on anything does rather signal that maybe it's time for them to go.

This exact thing has happened a few times, pretty much, with the result being that the names literally just switch. Republicans used to be the liberal party, as recent as the 1890s.

 

[Capstan]

This exact thing has happened a few times, pretty much, with the result being that the names literally just switch. Republicans used to be the liberal party, as recent as the 1890s.

The first Republican president, A. Lincoln, leaned toward socialism and libertarianism. A century and a half later, the party has become the exact opposite. My comments were based on historic precedence. Once a party has used up its usefulness, and begins to impede progress, it tends to snuff out, and there is a quick "reinvention" of the 2-party system.

 

[Spang]

Bernie Sanders is projected to take Michigan.

 

[Capstan]

Bernie Sanders is projected to take Michigan.

Sanders is doing pretty well. Since "super Tuesday," he has won four out of six states- Kansas, Nebraska, Maine, and today's upset in Michigan. Hillary has taken two southern states- Louisiana and Mississippi.

Meanwhile, Mitt Romney has registered for candidacy, although he has not declared himself to be one. As unlikely as it seems, if the Republicans get fed up with Trump and the others, it's conceivable they could "broker" a candidate, outside the convention, and declare Romney nominated for president.

 

[MadamSarcastra]

Bernie Sanders is projected to take Michigan.

And he did! Woo-hoo!!

Posted this elsewhere... Michigan Primary Election Results

 

[Moll Flanders]

Poll: Mitt Romney Helped Donald Trump, More Voters Now More Likely to Support the Billionaire - Breitbart

 

[Jeremy]

The first Republican president, A. Lincoln, leaned toward socialism and libertarianism. A century and a half later, the party has become the exact opposite. My comments were based on historic precedence. Once a party has used up its usefulness, and begins to impede progress, it tends to snuff out, and there is a quick "reinvention" of the 2-party system.

Right, if memory serves me it wasn't until LBJ came out in support of the civil rights movement that the ideological roles of the party's did a switcharoo.

 

[Capstan]

Right, if memory serves me it wasn't until LBJ came out in support of the civil rights movement that the ideological roles of the party's did a switcharoo.

I was just reading about that very thing. In the mid-'60s, it was Barry Goldwater who, much like Trump appears to today, more or less took control of the GOP, and led it sharply to the authoritarian right. He believed that Eisenhower had been far too liberal. Goldwater was opposed to the New Deal (social security, etc.) and to the Civil Rights Movement. He was also, as I recall, very keen on using nuclear weapons. But apparently, his extreme views also alienated a big part of the Republican voter-base, who didn't turn out to elect him, or even voted for Johnson, who won the '64 election by a landslide. Maybe the same thing will happen to Trump?

Is the GOP really on the verge of breaking in two? Here’s what history says.

 

[Mischief]

Right, if memory serves me it wasn't until LBJ came out in support of the civil rights movement that the ideological roles of the party's did a switcharoo.

It happened a while before that. What happened under Johnson was that the South, which had been Democratic ( as a leftover of the hatred of Lincoln, I suppose), turned Republican because of Johnson's drive toward civil rights. Johnson pushed the Civil Rights Act through even though he knew full well that it would cost the Democrats the South for at least a generation. But well before that, the Republicans were already known as the party of big business, and the Democrats were the ones promoting social programs. (Circa 1960, my father explained the difference between the parties to me this way: "The Republicans care about money, and the Democrats care about people."