Will the Republican Party split up?

[vadimivich]

It's a two-party system. Campaign finance realties virtually guarantee it. There will never be third party of even minor consequence until we have campaign finance reform.

Nah, Duverger's Law pretty much covers it ( http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger's_law).

First Past the Post voting leads to a two party system. We will always be a two party political system until we change the way we decide the winners of elections.

 

[deacphan]

LOL no. Everyone involved is far more worried about obtaining and keeping their own power, than what's good for the country or what falls in line with their "ideology".

They're all whores. Both sides. Their ideology is a PR message designed to keep them in office. Something to keep the peasants happy as they acquire power and money.

the almighty brasky insight. he's looking out for the sheeple if no one else is.

 

[dot com]

This is all Ted Cruz's fault! Get yer pitchforks!

 

[Deacon923]

Nah, Duverger's Law pretty much covers it ( http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger's_law).

First Past the Post voting leads to a two party system. We will always be a two party political system until we change the way we decide the winners of elections.

thanks for posting Duverger's Law, I had never heard of it. The Wikipedia article seems to have more examples of exceptions to the rule than examples of the rule itself, though. Some of the exceptions might apply to this situation - like when one party makes a big mistake and finds itself split into two regional parties (think Southern Tea Party and Northern Republicans) resulting in a three party system until things settle down again.

I voted "no" in my poll but it's interesting to think how this could all play out.

 

[vadimivich]

thanks for posting Duverger's Law, I had never heard of it. The Wikipedia article seems to have more examples of exceptions to the rule than examples of the rule itself, though. Some of the exceptions might apply to this situation - like when one party makes a big mistake and finds itself split into two regional parties (think Southern Tea Party and Northern Republicans) resulting in a three party system until things settle down again.

I voted "no" in my poll but it's interesting to think how this could all play out.

Something like that did happen in the UK, where "the left" split into two parties - but that's in a parliamentary system where they can effectively be in the same coalition the entire time.

Very hard to see it ever happening in the USA just due to the structure of our electoral and governmental systems.

 

[BillBrasky]

the almighty brasky insight. he's looking out for the sheeple if no one else is.

Keep believing that NANCY cares about your plight. Bitch is gotta pay for her next botox treatment and find a way to funnel gov't money to her husband. Everything else is immaterial.

If any of these politicians actually cared about their ideologies, from time-to-time they'd risk losing internal party power in exchange for a solution to one of our many problems. None of them ever do.

I really do suggest picking up this book:

http://www.amazon.com/This-Town-Parties-Funeral-Plus-Americas/dp/0399161309

It explains things much more eloquently than my public school education allows.

 

[BeachBumDeac]

Oh Brasky.

It's not that us liberals don't recognize that the Democratic Party and it's elected representatives also do some heinous political shit and also cater to rich special interests. It's that when your default response to every political news story is "Everyone sucks. Both sides suck. You're all sheep." it's just really intellectually lazy. It stops you from ever having to examine an issue, or discern between different positions on an issue. That's why we make fun of you for those comments

 

[ThinkingWithMyDeac]

Oh Brasky.

It's not that us liberals don't recognize that the Democratic Party and it's elected representatives also do some heinous political shit and also cater to rich special interests. It's that when your default response to every political news story is "Everyone sucks. Both sides suck. You're all sheep." it's just really intellectually lazy. It stops you from ever having to examine an issue, or discern between different positions on an issue. That's why we make fun of you for those comments

That and public school

 

[silk]

Republicans have always been split. What is now called moderate used to called Rockefeller Republican. What is now called tea party used to be just called Republican.

Rockefeller Republicans never accomplished anything. Only the conservative wing of the Republicans have had influence nationally.

 

[PhDeac]

Do the Rockefeller Republicans even exist anymore? My impression was they basically died out. What used to be Republican is now considered RINO and getting phased out. Conservatives are getting more conservative.

 

[Milhouse]

Oh Brasky.

It's not that us liberals don't recognize that the Democratic Party and it's elected representatives also do some heinous political shit and also cater to rich special interests. It's that when your default response to every political news story is "Everyone sucks. Both sides suck. You're all sheep." it's just really intellectually lazy. It stops you from ever having to examine an issue, or discern between different positions on an issue. That's why we make fun of you for those comments

moves to texas. gets even dumber. it's science.

 

[RJKarl]

Republicans have always been split. What is now called moderate used to called Rockefeller Republican. What is now called tea party used to be just called Republican.

Rockefeller Republicans never accomplished anything. Only the conservative wing of the Republicans have had influence nationally.

The only thing the TP has accomplished is electing batshit crazy people to Congress and making the US look weak overseas.

Well they did one thing, by nominating people like Akin, Angle, O'Donnell, Murdock, the guy in CO and others, they accomplished allowing the dems to maintain control of the Senate.

 

[bigdoublezero]

Republicans have always been split. What is now called moderate used to called Rockefeller Republican. What is now called tea party used to be just called Republican.

Rockefeller Republicans never accomplished anything. Only the conservative wing of the Republicans have had influence nationally.

This is ... not true.

 

[PhDeac]

[h=3]Why Big Business Won't Abandon the Tea Party[/h]
Could the ratio change if “the establishment” wanted it to? Of course—but that’s assuming that big financial interests are naturally set against the Tea Party. They are not. They helped create the Tea Party. In the aggregate, if you leave aside the contractors who might benefit from earmarks (RIP), they’re better off when Tea Partiers run the House.



The Tea Party, after all, is not wholly set against the GOP’s business class. It’s just the latest populist movement funded and fueled by the Big Business. The “anti-tax clubs” of the 1920s, which moved the Republican Congress to drop income tax rates, were literally organized by the allies of Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon. The (mostly incompetent) opponents of the New Deal, like the Liberty League and the National Organization of Manufacturers, coalesced when conservative donors realized they, the captains of industry, weren’t compelling advocates. “The capitalist system can be destroyed more effectively by having men of means defend it then by importing a million Reds from Moscow to attack it,” said one Texas businessman who backed the Liberty League, according to Invisible Hands author Kim Phillips-Fein.



None of this means that the Tea Party is “astro-turf.” Every successful political movement needs wealthy backers. And when you put aside the shutdown, the Tea Party members who now run the House are producing much more for the financial industry, for small business organizations, than Democrats would if they took back the House. No one’s looking to primary the average Class of 2010 Republican because he’s trying to repeal Dodd-Frank or challenge EPA rules or prevent any changes in tax law that would anger the donors

 

[Strickland33]

In the Bay Area, the Occupy Movement was a coalition of anarchists and homeless people. The homeless joined in because it's much safer to sleep in a group encampment than alone in a doorway somewhere. If the Tea Party believes in bootstraps over safety nets, they're never going to work in any kind of coalition to help the homeless. There's no Occupy political activity because anarchists don't believe in any government. There's a core group of 500-1000 anarchists in the Bay Area that are involved in every riot or violent protest.

Indeed. I was around for Occupy Wall Street in New York for its duration and noticed something very similar. Once the liberal element got sick of marching and Instagramming, and went back to sitting on their asses critiquing everything, Occupy really appealed to the radical left and the radical right. No kidding, rad socialists/anarchists, on the one hand, and ultra-libertarians on the other, actually shared quite a few political platforms, or had similar opinions, but from completely different vantage points/logics. Before there was any sort of convergence, though the movement lost steam and Bloomberg and Ray Kelly dismantled the encampment. Ideologically, the groups were completely incompatible, but politically (and tactically) I think they were more on the same page than they cared to admit. It would have been fascinating to see Occupy evolve without all of the militarized crackdown... I actually think it would have taken a very similar, albeit less astroturfed, route as the Tea Party did.

 

[sailordeac]

And the answer is: due to the structure and financing of elections (as noted above) no. Next!