What happened to the Whigs - and how we can help the GOP go there too

[AltWorlder]

Pretty interesting scenario.  Of course, it's written by a Daily Kos person, so your mileage may vary.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Any opinions?

I don't really think much of these sort of analogies, but I certainly do believe that even if we continue to have the two party system indefinitely, new parties will replace the current two.  Any speculation as to what the post-Republican party will be named?  I'm betting on Whig-Federalist.

[Person Man]

Both parties could be on the verge of losing viability.


Stem Cells, Abortion, Civil Rights, War and Homeland Security... are becoming wedge issues which makes some democrats not support other democrats and the same for republicans.

Clinton's triangulation and Bush's "Compassionate Conservativism" has fulfilled #1.

The only thing really missing at this point is #3 and in 2004, we have had the weakest alternative party votes in generations. Maybe 2008 will be different. This is what could happen in 2008:

One party collapse and is replaced- I give this about a 1% chance of happening. The republicans are pretty entrenched at the national level and the democrats are pretty entrenched at the grassroots....which has been the status quo for generations. Then again, the Republicans being pushed out of their last elected bastion of power in such a grand way or the Democrats' inabilty to even win the White House this year may create a rival major party to fight over their respective constitutentcy. I would think some names would look like this-

Left-Progressive Parties-
   - Labor Party
   - Progressive Party
   - New Democratic Party
   - Green Party
   - Populist Party
   - Liberal American Party
   - Unionist Party
   - Liberal Constitution Party

Right-Reactionary Parties-
   - Constitution Party
   - Social Credit Party
   - Conservative Party
   - Federalist Party
   - Conservative Constitution Party
   - Nationalist Party
   - American Party
   - American Independent Party

A more viable scenario would be if there were a major 3rd party spoiler that could take a few million (or more) votes. I give this scenario a 40% chance of happening with Bob Barr. If Barr changes his mind, or he doesn't get any media attention, I give this scenario a 5% chance of happening.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The problem with this scenario is that in no way do I see immigration doing to the Republicans what slavery did to the Whigs.  For one thing, differences on immigration are not anywhere near as sectional as slavery was.

There's also something else to consider.  The Republican party that arose from the ashes of the Whigs was the predominant party for many decades.  Indeed, were it not for the solid South and the occasional third party, the Democrats wouldn't have elected a single President in the 72 years between between Buchanan and FDR.  Does he really want the Democrats to go through that lean period again?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

A more viable scenario would be if there were a major 3rd party spoiler that could take a few million (or more) votes. I give this scenario a 40% chance of happening with Bob Barr. If Barr changes his mind, or he doesn't get any media attention, I give this scenario a 5% chance of happening.

Not going to happen.  The Libertarian Party has been a fringe party for so long its no longer credible.  It might someday do as the Free Soil Party did and inspire a new party that could displace one of the existing two, but the existing Libertarian Party is as meaningful politically as the Prohibition Party.

[troosvelt]

Interesting scenario but the Kos crowd wants a one party state where only they have  rights.

[Person Man]

Interesting scenario but the Kos crowd wants a one party state where only they have  rights.

...replace Kos crowd with Drudge and you are about right.

[troosvelt]

Actually I'd apply it to both extremes.

I would hope you would to, but perhaps you are ok with banning rights of those you disagree with ?

[Person Man]

Actually I'd apply it to both extremes.

I would hope you would to, but perhaps you are ok with banning rights of those you disagree with ?

I would hope you would to, but perhaps you are ok with banning rights of those you disagree with ?

[SPC]

A more viable scenario would be if there were a major 3rd party spoiler that could take a few million (or more) votes. I give this scenario a 40% chance of happening with Bob Barr. If Barr changes his mind, or he doesn't get any media attention, I give this scenario a 5% chance of happening.

Not going to happen.  The Libertarian Party has been a fringe party for so long its no longer credible.  It might someday do as the Free Soil Party did and inspire a new party that could displace one of the existing two, but the existing Libertarian Party is as meaningful politically as the Prohibition Party.

Well, you forget too easily that Ron Paul proved that there are at least 900,000 libertarians and libertarian-leaners in the Republican Party. If most of them cast their votes for the Libertarian nominee en masse, in addition to the traditional 200,000 LP voters. That leaves a floor of 1.1 million for the Libertarian nominee. If Barr is the nominee, there will likely be more anti-McCain conservatives voting Libertarian, leaving Barr with around 1.5-2 million votes. While this is not as big as Nader's 2000 numbers, it will no doubt be influential in a close election like this. This will probably be more than enough votes to take away Republican leads in Nevada, Florida, Colorado, New Mexico, etc.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

A more viable scenario would be if there were a major 3rd party spoiler that could take a few million (or more) votes. I give this scenario a 40% chance of happening with Bob Barr. If Barr changes his mind, or he doesn't get any media attention, I give this scenario a 5% chance of happening.

Not going to happen.  The Libertarian Party has been a fringe party for so long its no longer credible.  It might someday do as the Free Soil Party did and inspire a new party that could displace one of the existing two, but the existing Libertarian Party is as meaningful politically as the Prohibition Party.

Well, you forget too easily that Ron Paul proved that there are at least 900,000 libertarians and libertarian-leaners in the Republican Party. If most of them cast their votes for the Libertarian nominee en masse, in addition to the traditional 200,000 LP voters. That leaves a floor of 1.1 million for the Libertarian nominee. If Barr is the nominee, there will likely be more anti-McCain conservatives voting Libertarian, leaving Barr with around 1.5-2 million votes. While this is not as big as Nader's 2000 numbers, it will no doubt be influential in a close election like this. This will probably be more than enough votes to take away Republican leads in Nevada, Florida, Colorado, New Mexico, etc.

I'd agree with that, but I think they'll get enough votes in Florida to overcome the defections.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Well, you forget too easily that Ron Paul proved that there are at least 900,000 libertarians and libertarian-leaners in the Republican Party. If most of them cast their votes for the Libertarian nominee en masse, in addition to the traditional 200,000 LP voters. That leaves a floor of 1.1 million for the Libertarian nominee. If Barr is the nominee, there will likely be more anti-McCain conservatives voting Libertarian, leaving Barr with around 1.5-2 million votes. While this is not as big as Nader's 2000 numbers, it will no doubt be influential in a close election like this. This will probably be more than enough votes to take away Republican leads in Nevada, Florida, Colorado, New Mexico, etc.

I doubt that many of those 900,000 will throw away their vote on a third party candidate.

The best that the Libertarian Party has ever done is 1980, when they were still a fairly new party and got 921,128 votes for 1.06% of PV tally.  Since then the best they did was in 1996 when they came in fifth in the popular vote and got 485,798 votes for 0.50% of the PV.  The Libertarian Party is not going to be a major force.  That isn't to say that a libertarian party might not become a major force, it just won't be the Libertarian Party.  For good or ill, they are doomed to eternal fringe status.  Perhaps if Bush had managed to win the Republican nomination in 1980, the LP might have been able to vault into major party status, but that didn't happen.

In short, I'd say that the upper limit on the Libertarian Party in 2008 is 500,000.  Any more than that will only come if the McCain campaign is so far down by October that voters will have every reason to believe that a vote for the Republican Party would be just as wasted as one for the Libertarian Party.  In that case, there will be voters trying to send a message by voting for a third party.

[SPC]

Well, you forget too easily that Ron Paul proved that there are at least 900,000 libertarians and libertarian-leaners in the Republican Party. If most of them cast their votes for the Libertarian nominee en masse, in addition to the traditional 200,000 LP voters. That leaves a floor of 1.1 million for the Libertarian nominee. If Barr is the nominee, there will likely be more anti-McCain conservatives voting Libertarian, leaving Barr with around 1.5-2 million votes. While this is not as big as Nader's 2000 numbers, it will no doubt be influential in a close election like this. This will probably be more than enough votes to take away Republican leads in Nevada, Florida, Colorado, New Mexico, etc.

I doubt that many of those 900,000 will throw away their vote on a third party candidate.

The best that the Libertarian Party has ever done is 1980, when they were still a fairly new party and got 921,128 votes for 1.06% of PV tally.  Since then the best they did was in 1996 when they came in fifth in the popular vote and got 485,798 votes for 0.50% of the PV.  The Libertarian Party is not going to be a major force.  That isn't to say that a libertarian party might not become a major force, it just won't be the Libertarian Party.  For good or ill, they are doomed to eternal fringe status.  Perhaps if Bush had managed to win the Republican nomination in 1980, the LP might have been able to vault into major party status, but that didn't happen.

In short, I'd say that the upper limit on the Libertarian Party in 2008 is 500,000.  Any more than that will only come if the McCain campaign is so far down by October that voters will have every reason to believe that a vote for the Republican Party would be just as wasted as one for the Libertarian Party.  In that case, there will be voters trying to send a message by voting for a third party.

Based on your impression of we Paulites on the internet, do you really think that most of us would vote Republican in the general election? Paul himself has even admitted that most of his supporters will not vote for McCain. They will either vote Libertarian, write-in Ron Paul, or not vote at all.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I expect that of the 850K votes he's gotten so far, about 300K will vote Republican, 200K Libertarian, 50K Constitution, and 300K will stay home.

[minionofmidas]

       1. A president who was ostensibly part of their party but actually opposed all their policies. George W. Bush has dramatically increased the size of the Federal Government, usurped what are traditionally "states' rights", abridged citizens' privacy rights, and on and on.

That makes him a president who was actually part of their party but opposed all their ostensible policies. Not the same thing at all.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes... some of them... doesn't prove much, though.

       2. A wedge issue We have seen in IL-14 and other areas that Anti-immigration is a losing platform. Many Republicans still maintain that position though. The Iraq war in another issue that divides Republicans: some still support the president, generally in defiance of their populace, and others recognize its tremendous negative effect.[/quote]Alas, it has the potential to divide Democrats worse. Still. Despite its unpopularity. Viet Nam should serve as a massive warning here...

[SPC]

I expect that of the 850K votes he's gotten so far, about 300K will vote Republican, 200K Libertarian, 50K Constitution, and 300K will stay home.

You seriously think that that many Ron Paul supporters will vote for McCain?! You've seen how Paulites have reacted to the field of Republican candidates excluding Paul, right?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Hell, I considered voting for Paul, but decided that I didn't want to waste my vote as I saw a difference between the people who actually had a shot at the nomination.  While I agree that way fewer than 1 in 3 of the people who sent the Paul campaign money or otherwise did more than simply putting a check mark beside his name on the ballot will be voting for McCain, that 1 in 3 of the people overall (as opposed to the hardcore Paulistas) who voted for Paul will end up voting for McCain is a conservative estimate in my opinion.

[SPC]

Hell, I considered voting for Paul, but decided that I didn't want to waste my vote as I saw a difference between the people who actually had a shot at the nomination.  While I agree that way fewer than 1 in 3 of the people who sent the Paul campaign money or otherwise did more than simply putting a check mark beside his name on the ballot will be voting for McCain, that 1 in 3 of the people overall (as opposed to the hardcore Paulistas) who voted for Paul will end up voting for McCain is a conservative estimate in my opinion.

So, since you live in South Carolina, I'm guessing you voted for McCain? While I agree that the more moderate Paulites may vote for McCain, I see it as being about 10-20%. But, Barr could compensate for this by bringing on board some former conservative friends. He is currently the leading candidate to support the FairTax (much to my resentment), so he will likely get a significant number of those people aboard.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

My main concern on primary day was how best to hurt Mitt Romney's chances of getting the nomination.  I ending up voting for McCain, as I saw him as having the better chance to bury the flopster.  It was a very last minute decision in the voting booth for me between him and Huckabee.  I also gave some consideration to making a tactical vote for Fred Thompson in hopes of helping Romney to come in fourth, but decided against it.

[SPC]

My main concern on primary day was how best to hurt Mitt Romney's chances of getting the nomination.  I ending up voting for McCain, as I saw him as having the better chance to bury the flopster.  It was a very last minute decision in the voting booth for me between him and Huckabee.  I also gave some consideration to making a tactical vote for Fred Thompson in hopes of helping Romney to come in fourth, but decided against it.

Funny. My parents (much to my resentment) voted for Romney to stop McCain's chances at the nomination.

[Person Man]

Another thing is what would happen if the Democrats break up, if proven they can never when the generals. They would be HUGE at the grassroots but so weak at the top. Could a rogue wave change the face of the American Party system?

[Хahar 🤔]

Another thing is what would happen if the Democrats break up, if proven they can never when the generals. They would be HUGE at the grassroots but so weak at the top. Could a rogue wave change the face of the American Party system?

AW, shut up. The Democrats aren't going anywhere, despite what you've said over and over.

[The Mikado]

Not going to happen.  If the Democrats could survive the post-Civil War era and the 1920s, and the Republicans could survive the Depression, this period won't threaten either.

[Smid]

IF the Democrats became more populist, and won more states based on that and became more competitive in the South at a presidential level... then and only then would the Republicans need to shift their base. Until then, they have enough support to maintain themselves. The Democrats aren't moving and therefore the Republicans aren't either.

[Albus Dumbledore]

Americans would vote in center-leftists but not leftists like the current dems. If the dems became more moderate they'd own both houses and the presidency for a very long time.

[Orser67]

One thing that the writer of that article neglected to mention was that the Whig Party was a relatively new party, and was also started as a relatively loose alliance against Jackson. 

Both parties of today have existed for over 150 years, and both have the generational loyalties and traditions that the Whig Party lacked.  Stranger things have happened, but I don't see any issue that could break up either party.

Anyway I'd rather have two relatively centrist parties, rather than hoping that the Republicans fall apart.  Although, if the Senate Republicans become as conservative as the House Republicans, I might just change my mind.