I think that most of the Republicans who have joined the Democrats recently have done it because of the recent Bush-era problems, not because of a change in political ideology.
To expand on what I meant when I started this topic, I believe that the Republican party cannot contain both libertarians and social conservatives. So two new parties should be created to see which of the two is stronger against the Democrats. I don't believe that is will be 50% Dem, 25% Lib, 25% Christian, because some Democrats (especially new ones) may move to either of the two new parties.
I think that the ideology would be something like this:
Democratic Party: Social Liberal/Economic Liberal (liberal to moderate democrats)
Libertarian Party: Social Liberal/Economic Conservative ("new" democrats who recently converted in the past years, moderate Republicans, pro-business republicans)
Christian Party: Social Conservative/Economic Liberal (social conservative Republicans, current conservative Democrats)
It would then split into three parties. With people like me who are both fiscally and socially conservative remaining in the Republican party. Then don't be surprised if whats left of the GOP is larger then either the Libertarian or the Christian Party. This so called divide is exaggerated. Huckabee has some populist leanings and he appeals to "Legacy populism" that goes back to William Jennings Bryan. But don't forget a large number of people who are fiscally conservative as well as socially conservative supported him because they "thought" him more conservative then other choices. Huckabee is the candidate of the Evangelical true but at most they represent 25 to 33% of the Republican party when not matched with Conservative Catholics(who ironically were not attracted to his campaign), and Mormons(turned off by his bigoted campaign, plus they had one of there own in the running). When you combine all three you have a party that is 55% to 60% socially conservative. And most of those Envangelicals are pretty conservative on Economics now, and Huck did not win them unanimously. The wasn't a Libertarian candidate in 2008 at all. You have the people who backed Romney, Thompson, and McCAin whose supporters were either conservative on both issues, or moderates to some degree on one of the other or both. When you consider that when you combine those three's performances in say Iowa it beats Huck's 52-34. Finally consider that maybe Half of Hucks people may be considered populist, that 17% of a Republican Primary in a state where Republicans are 33% of the state you are talking less then 5% of all Iowa voters, and that is very generaous.
Again the so called "populism" of Huck and his supporters his truly far fetched, eventhough we Romney supporters have will continue to throw that around to damage him.
