The rigor mortis is setting in the Republican Party

[Jason Harvestdancer]

That is precisely not what I wrote.

I know. You worded it to avoid casting any blame on the Democrats in a post that centered on how the Democrats were all at fault. That weekend course you took at the Fox News Training Center paid off well.

Not even close.

I wrote that the Democratic Party won't let the Republicans Party die, not that the Democratic Party was trying to destroy the Republican Party. See, you have it exactly backwards.

And I stand by my actual statement, not the reverse statement you are trying so desperately to ascribe to me. The Democratic Party needs the Republican Party as much as the Republican Party needs the Democratic Party. Neither would work without the other, and should either fall an actual opposition party would arise to replace the fallen party. Neither party wants an actual opposition party, they want to oppose each other instead.

I have no fears that the Republican Party is dying. The Democratic Party won't let it die.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Ya, because the last thing that the Dems would want is a fractured right wing split across multiple competing parties. Or are you suggesting that a single right wing party would emerge which encompasses all the people who are currently in the Republican party but this exact same group of people would avoid all the problems they're having in their current single right wing party?

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Actually yes, that IS the last thing they would want. They do not want several parties to oppose. This is a two party system. There have been two times in this country's history when a major party collapsed, and it was shortly replaced by another major party.

The first time was the demise of the Federalist Party. What happened was that the former Federalists joined the Democratic-Republican Party, so the primary actually determined who would be the winner. That led to the spectacle of John Quincy Adams running under the Democratic-Republican Party label even though he was basically a Federalist in outlook and the Democratic-Republican Party was Jefferson's Party. It was after that when Andrew Jackson reformed the Democratic-Republican Party and the Whig Party fissioned off of the Democratic-Republican Party, picking up the torch from the old Whig Party.

The second time was the demise of the Whig Party. It was very quickly replaced, less than four years later, by the Republican Party, and the Whigs basically changed their party registration.

So what does this mean if you actually think the Democratic Party won't save the Republican Party? One of two things.

If we go the first route, many current Republicans will change their party registration to the Democratic Party. That means Democrat George W. Bush. That means Democrat Sarah Palin. And you won't be able to say "you're a racist" as an automatic rebuttal to those who disagree with you because that only applies to non-Demorats. What will you say to Democrat Dick Cheney? You will have a vastly larger party, with a hard right wing, until the party fissions again.

If we go the second route, many current Republicans will simply change their registration to that of one of the right wing smaller parties. However, like with the Whigs and the Republicans. this new party will have a lot less baggage. It will be difficult for many of the current attacks to work as any former Republican can say "those were the Republicans, we aren't Republicans."

So, which do you prefer? I can tell you that neither of those options are attractive to the leaders of the Democratic Party.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

So, the risk is that they'll stop being the Republican party and start being the No Homers party?

The Democrats are worried about the plot of a Simpsons episode?

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

If that is as close as you can get to understanding political science, then yes.

 

[Deepak]

Frankly, your post is preposterous. The US system has two parties because it's the Nash equilibrant solution with FPTP elections. If the Republican party tanks then another 'big tent' anti-liberal party will emerge rather than an array of opposition parties.

And you can be damn sure they'll keep the metric system down.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

If that is as close as you can get to understanding political science, then yes.

So, your contention that the Dems are afraid of the Republicans changing the name on their business cards and fooling everyone into thinking they're different people was a serious one?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Actually yes, that IS the last thing they would want. They do not want several parties to oppose. This is a two party system. There have been two times in this country's history when a major party collapsed, and it was shortly replaced by another major party.

The first time was the demise of the Federalist Party. What happened was that the former Federalists joined the Democratic-Republican Party, so the primary actually determined who would be the winner. That led to the spectacle of John Quincy Adams running under the Democratic-Republican Party label even though he was basically a Federalist in outlook and the Democratic-Republican Party was Jefferson's Party. It was after that when Andrew Jackson reformed the Democratic-Republican Party and the Whig Party fissioned off of the Democratic-Republican Party, picking up the torch from the old Whig Party.

The second time was the demise of the Whig Party. It was very quickly replaced, less than four years later, by the Republican Party, and the Whigs basically changed their party registration.

So what does this mean if you actually think the Democratic Party won't save the Republican Party? One of two things.

If we go the first route, many current Republicans will change their party registration to the Democratic Party. That means Democrat George W. Bush. That means Democrat Sarah Palin. And you won't be able to say "you're a racist" as an automatic rebuttal to those who disagree with you because that only applies to non-Demorats. What will you say to Democrat Dick Cheney? You will have a vastly larger party, with a hard right wing, until the party fissions again.

If we go the second route, many current Republicans will simply change their registration to that of one of the right wing smaller parties. However, like with the Whigs and the Republicans. this new party will have a lot less baggage. It will be difficult for many of the current attacks to work as any former Republican can say "those were the Republicans, we aren't Republicans."

So, which do you prefer? I can tell you that neither of those options are attractive to the leaders of the Democratic Party.

And while we haven't hit November yet, I'm awarding this post Every Cloud Has A Silver Lining Post of the Year Award.

 

[zorq]

Actually yes, that IS the last thing they would want. They do not want several parties to oppose. This is a two party system. There have been two times in this country's history when a major party collapsed, and it was shortly replaced by another major party.

The first time was the demise of the Federalist Party. What happened was that the former Federalists joined the Democratic-Republican Party, so the primary actually determined who would be the winner. That led to the spectacle of John Quincy Adams running under the Democratic-Republican Party label even though he was basically a Federalist in outlook and the Democratic-Republican Party was Jefferson's Party. It was after that when Andrew Jackson reformed the Democratic-Republican Party and the Whig Party fissioned off of the Democratic-Republican Party, picking up the torch from the old Whig Party.

The second time was the demise of the Whig Party. It was very quickly replaced, less than four years later, by the Republican Party, and the Whigs basically changed their party registration.

So what does this mean if you actually think the Democratic Party won't save the Republican Party? One of two things.

If we go the first route, many current Republicans will change their party registration to the Democratic Party. That means Democrat George W. Bush. That means Democrat Sarah Palin. And you won't be able to say "you're a racist" as an automatic rebuttal to those who disagree with you because that only applies to non-Demorats. What will you say to Democrat Dick Cheney? You will have a vastly larger party, with a hard right wing, until the party fissions again.

If we go the second route, many current Republicans will simply change their registration to that of one of the right wing smaller parties. However, like with the Whigs and the Republicans. this new party will have a lot less baggage. It will be difficult for many of the current attacks to work as any former Republican can say "those were the Republicans, we aren't Republicans."

So, which do you prefer? I can tell you that neither of those options are attractive to the leaders of the Democratic Party.

So either the ex-Republicans will carry their baggage with them when they join the Dems which the Dems won't like, or they will completely shed their baggage when they become the Neo-Republican party Which the Dem's won't like?

Which is it? Will they be carrying baggage or not? Why would Democrat Dick Cheyney be carrying more baggage than Neo-Republican Dick Cheyney?


I can't take your political musings seriously because they are internally inconsistent.

Frankly, the future is a vast mysterious place and I don't trust people who think the future only holds as few as two possible paths.
But considering the first option you pose with Democrat Dick Cheyney (Not likely), you admit that this party would break apart again, but in the meantime all they have to do is hold onto super majority status against the hard right wing parties (And the hard left wing parties like the Greens) for about a decade to enact everything moderate on their party platform. Sounds like a winning scenario for the Dems to me.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Ya, up here in Canada, we had the rightwing party fall apart into competing factions and it led to about a decade of a Liberal government. Eventually, they retooled and amalgamated back together and took advantage of vote splitting between two leftwing parties to win a few elections. In the last one, one of those leftwing parties abandoned it in droves in order to avoid a vote split and get them out.

The notion that the Liberal party of the 1990s would have been against the collapse of the Conservatives because it would end up with there being a minority Conservative government after more than ten years of their unimpeded rule is just fucking nonsensical, but that's the basic argument being put forward here.

I really don't think that the Democrats are against a GOP collapse because they're worried about voters saying "Well, Jeb Bush of the Republicans isn't someone I'd vote for, but that Jeb Bush guy in the No Homers party would make for a great President".

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

So either the ex-Republicans will carry their baggage with them when they join the Dems which the Dems won't like, or they will completely shed their baggage when they become the Neo-Republican party Which the Dem's won't like?

Which is it? Will they be carrying baggage or not? Why would Democrat Dick Cheyney be carrying more baggage than Neo-Republican Dick Cheyney?

Yeah, that's exactly what I wrote. Just like when I wrote that the Democratic Party would save the Republican Party, and Tom Sawyer responded by accusing me of writing that the Democratic Party would destroy the Republican Party. Yep, what you wrote is exactly as good a representation of my writing.

So, baggage. Not ideology, baggage. Two different things. You assume that ideology is the baggage, but it isn't.

If we follow the Federalist-Whig path, these ex-Republicans new-Democrats won't be shedding their ideology. They will be leaving baggage behind, but not ideology. The hypothetical Democratic Candidate Sarah Palin would be just as conservative (whatever that means) as she is now.

I don't need to ask what the Democrats would say to someone of Cheney's ideology running as a Democrat because I already know the answer - it is "Hillary 2016".

I can't take your political musings seriously because they are internally inconsistent.

Yeah, Tom Sawyer thinks so too. He thinks I was writing about the Democratic Party deliberately destroying the Republican Party.

Frankly, the future is a vast mysterious place and I don't trust people who think the future only holds as few as two possible paths.

That's the first accurate thing you wrote. I was just relying on the only two historical precedents. An imploded Republican Party could lead to a new precedent, a new path. One possible path would be: without opposition to the Republicans uniting the Democrats, the Democratic Party implodes shortly afterwards.

But considering the first option you pose with Democrat Dick Cheyney (Not likely), you admit that this party would break apart again, but in the meantime all they have to do is hold onto super majority status against the hard right wing parties (And the hard left wing parties like the Greens) for about a decade to enact everything moderate on their party platform. Sounds like a winning scenario for the Dems to me.

Permanent Second Place was what destroyed the Federalist Party. You're not going to get that.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

So, they won't have the baggage. How is it that they get rid of that by disbanding their group and then reforming it with the same people under a different name? I just don't get the process you're referring to.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

"Oh yeah? The Republicans..."
"We're not the Republicans, we're the (insert name here)"

Duh.

"Oh yeah? You used to be..."
"Then I figured out the Republicans were wrong and that's why I'm not one anymore."

Duh.

Remember, the Republicans aren't the Whigs and the Whigs aren't the Republicans. Duh.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

So, the Republucans were all wrong, but now the new party is not because the people in the new party are ... this is where I lose what your argument is. They are the same people. They have the same ideas.

They either exclude part of the Republican Party and force the excluded folks to go elsewhere to competing groups or they include everybody and just switch out their business cards. The latter method doesn't get rid of any baggage. I'm not following what your rational is to how it would.

Is the Happy Unicorn Party a good choice for running Afghanistan even if everyone it was part of the Taliban last week?

 

[RavenSky]

And now for the humor part of the OP.

"If he weren't a Bush, I wouldn't even know his name," said Republican Leslie Millican, a 34-year-old housewife from Magnolia, Arkansas. "I like the other Bushes. Something about (Jeb Bush) — he ain't grown on me yet."

Yup, W was a loveable one, but that Jeb Bush... something just off about him.

I actually feel sorry for Jeb. I wouldn't want him for President, but I do feel bad for him. He was supposed to be the one being groomed for the Presidency, to follow in his Father's footsteps. Then GW happened.

- - - Updated - - -

I so want Trump to win the GOP nomination. Sure, there's a risk that this would result in that psycho freak being in charge of a large army right next door to me and that's a pretty scary thought, but that risk is neglible enough not to concern myself over. I just want to watch Hillary Clinton stand on a stage beside him and be forced to give serious answers to whatever the fuck crazy shit comes out of his mouth. That would be a show worth watching.

I have to agree with you on that! although I also have to admit that I wonder if the conspiracy nutters might just be on to something this time. Maybe Trump really is a Hillary Clinton plot.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

And now for the humor part of the OP.
Yup, W was a loveable one, but that Jeb Bush... something just off about him.

I actually feel sorry for Jeb. I wouldn't want him for President, but I do feel bad for him. He was supposed to be the one being groomed for the Presidency, to follow in his Father's footsteps. Then GW happened.

GW could be easily controlled by the Neocons. Jeb Bush would have fought back... err... maybe.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I actually feel sorry for Jeb. I wouldn't want him for President, but I do feel bad for him. He was supposed to be the one being groomed for the Presidency, to follow in his Father's footsteps. Then GW happened.

There's a comedienne who talks about doing a show in Ireland back when. People kept coming up to her, "I can't believe George Bush is yer president!"
"I can," she would reply. "But you know who's sticking pencils in his eye? Jeb. 'Dammit, how'd this happen? _I'm_ the smart one!'"

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

So, the risk is that they'll stop being the Republican party and start being the No Homers party?

The Democrats are worried about the plot of a Simpsons episode?

Considering that the Republicans rose to replace the Whigs, do you think the Republican Party is a No Homers Party?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

So, the risk is that they'll stop being the Republican party and start being the No Homers party?

The Democrats are worried about the plot of a Simpsons episode?

Considering that the Republicans rose to replace the Whigs, do you think the Republican Party is a No Homers Party?

We're not discussing the political situation of a century ago, we're talking about the one of today. It is one which has far more modern parallels just in the last few years. They will either split and become a number of smaller parties which are less of a threat or they will be the same party with the same people and the same ideas and simply a different name and no news story about them will neglect to mention that fact.

Now, are you saying that they'll be able to fool everybody into thinking that they're a different group and people won't notice or are you saying that they'll actually have different ideas, despite being made up of the exact same people?

Will the Tea Party and assorted crazies be excluded from the Party or will they play an integral part in the Party's primary system and need to be catered to? Will there be a limit on how often a candidate can bring up Reagan in each sentence do people don't start to get the idea that these guys might be Republicans disguising themselves in a pair of glasses?

 

[Crazy Eddie]

"Oh yeah? The Republicans..."
"We're not the Republicans, we're the (insert name here)"

Duh.

"Oh yeah? You used to be..."
"Then I figured out the Republicans were wrong and that's why I'm not one anymore."

Duh.

Remember, the Republicans aren't the Whigs and the Whigs aren't the Republicans. Duh.

I could see them TRYING it, but I really don't think this is ever really going to work. The existing Republicans will probably be absorbed into a new party (Tea Party? New Libertarians? Constitutionalist?) both for their desire to remain relevant and the new party's need for numbers.

Considering that the Republicans rose to replace the Whigs, do you think the Republican Party is a No Homers Party?

We're not discussing the political situation of a century ago, we're talking about the one of today. It is one which has far more modern parallels just in the last few years. They will either split and become a number of smaller parties which are less of a threat or they will be the same party with the same people and the same ideas and simply a different name and no news story about them will neglect to mention that fact.

But they couldn't just change their name and still be the same party; nobody would fall for that, and they wouldn't get their own party to really go along with it anyway.

The name change would probably come from a change of leadership, with the new leadership having a very different ideology (hence the reason I mentioned "Constitutionalist" as a possibility). Existing conservatives would probably cast their lot with this new power bloc just because it would serve as a convenient vehicle for their interests, but it would no longer be defined by the "conservatives" as in the current party. Probably a strain of libertarianish politicians would take the reigns in that case, committed more to legislating individualist philosophies and removing collectivist protections from the Constitution (14th amendment et al) than to anything we might currently recognize as conservativism.

All the same, I would love to see the end of the two-party system in America. Having multiple parties would be good for the country in the long run, but I don't think it's ever going to happen.