Replies

Relying on one of the currently existing third parties is not an option. Most of them simply exist as their founders' ego trips. Most of them don't even make a pretense at trying to have a broad-based, Reaganesque appeal. However, simply giving up and voting for Romney is not an option, either. What we need is a broad-based "coalition" type organisation that may not even necessarily be a traditional "party," and which would operate outside the usual Party system. It would seek to unite conservatives, running its own candidate for President in an attempt to win using the 40% of self-professed conservatives (inside and OUTSIDE the GOP) as its starting point, while displaying resolution and leadership that will bring in the moderates. At the senatorial and congressional level, this organisation would support those candidates worth supporting, and would challenge those not.

I already see people on this thread trying to use Perot as a reason for sticking with the GOP, regardless of what happens.

Those who do so apprently need to relearn a little history.

Perot could well have won in 1992. He was leading in the polls starting in June. The trick was that he was NOT supposed to win. He was only supposed to draw enough support to elect Clinton. This is why Perot dropped out - he was doing TOO WELL and threatened to take it from Clinton, as well as from Bush. He got back in once his support dropped back just to the die-hards, and even then, despite it all, he pulled 19%. If he'd stayed in, he'd have had 40% and won the EV.

What we need is a broad-based "coalition" type organisation that may not even necessarily be a traditional "party," and which would operate outside the usual Party system. It would seek to unite conservatives, running its own candidate for President in an attempt to win using the 40% of self-professed conservatives (inside and OUTSIDE the GOP) as its starting point, while displaying resolution and leadership that will bring in the moderates. At the senatorial and congressional level, this organisation would support those candidates worth supporting, and would challenge those not.

Basically, the Tea Party needs to GET organized and raise a bunch of money. They need to be able to match the next Romney dollar-for-dollar in the next presidential primary. Problem though, who decides which candidate the organization backs? A vote of the membership that you're going to stick to even if it turns out to be Ron Paul?

I would wonder if it's even possible to get on the presidential ballot nationwide for a new party at this time. I think the Americans Elect party Schoen is running has been working for months to get on all the ballots. Bottom line, if an organization could be made that quickly, it would've been made in this primary to defeat Mitt months ago.