[H.Akston]

You: How much will the third party siphon?
Me: "Well, I used the example of Ross Perot. In 1992 he got 18.9% of the popular vote and zero electoral college votes, and Clinton won with 43% of the vote."

Your Response: "I don't believe Bush or Christie will beat Clinton, whether a conservative candidate runs in the general election or not"

? Well you're welcome, anyway, for my direct answer, complete with a percentage figure.

Besides the non-sequitur, I don't understand what you mean "whether a conservative candidate runs in the general or not". If you had just stopped after saying that you didn't believe Bush or Christie can beat Clinton, I'd get it.

"Both Bush and Christie will try to win by targeting the rare and precious "watered-down Democrat who just might go for a liberal Republican" vote that the GOP establishment believes is the key to victory, and will lose again."

What do you expect them to do? There are only 38% tru-cons in the country. Moderate votes, what you call "watered-down Democrats who just might go for a liberal Republican" are going to have to be sought. (am I really having to say this?) Right votes can steer the party to the right in the primary, that's why they're precious. 38% of Americans self-identify as conservatives. They're rare because that's less than 50%. WE NEED SOME MODERATE VOTES TO WIN. Many people who think they're moderate are just disillusioned conservatives who don't know it. They don't know it because it's hard to find a conservative candidate who is a great enough communicator to overcome the media spin and democrat slander about conservatives. About 34% of the country considers themselves moderate. They are not precious except for their ability to help the 38% to win. How is any 38% base party going to win without attracting non-base voters?

Also, you're talking as if Bush or Christie is a foregone conclusion. There are a lot of chances for him to go full Howard Dean before the 2016 primaries. Bush says he won't run, despite what his son said, nor does his mother want him to. He'll probably wait to see if Walker runs.

No third party will ever win. TR didn't. RP didn't. A third party is just a diversion of resources and energy taking away the ability to steer the party that CAN win to the right in a primary. The country's only hope is for the right to dominate a single party that can win, no matter what it's named. That's kind of what happened in 2010 and what should happen in 2 days. And every party that gets created and engages in a national election has to draw from the same pool of American voters, who elected Obama twice and learn very slowly. If there is hope, it lies in the GOP primaries.

"Voters on the right are repeatedly told that they must hold their noses and cast ballots for the GOP-nominated liberal who is not quite as extreme as the Democratic nominee - and if s/he wins, they must then own the liberal policies the GOP president will support. Who can blame them for refusing to take part in this? The current two-party setup can't work because the GOP's only guiding principle is to beat the Democrats even if it requires becoming indistinguishable from them."

Well boo-hoo. You don't have to like it, you just have to be realistic. The two party system is what it is, and the alternative, as demonstrated in 1992, won't work. Voters on the left are pissed at Obama for not being left enough. (Jessee wanted to "cut his nuts off".) Take heart in that. The GOP has plenty of good conservatives in it. I would much rather have Ed Gillespie than Mark Warner. I'm not "holding my nose" and voting for Gillespie. I'm not that picky, which helps the country be as right as it possibly can be. Show me a perfect candidate and I'll show you yourself who is running. The two party system is reality. I'll believe the GOP is indistinguishable from the Democrats, when Justice Scalia becomes indistinguishable from Justice Ginsburg.

Ref: http://www.gallup.com/poll/166787/liberal-self-identification-edges-new-high-2013.aspx

[AnotherUnixGeek]

Besides the non-sequitur

I'm sorry you missed the point, but I was quite clear. But I'll try again. You imply that Perot drew enough votes away from Bush 1 to get Clinton elected. I don't believe anything similar can happen in 2016 because I don't believe Bush or Christie will win with or without a general election opponent on his right. We've been through this in 1992, 1996, 2008, 2012 - even 2000 was a victory of a moderate Republican by the slightest of margins. And your advice is to keep on doing what doesn't work, even though it won't be good for conservatism even if it does work. Got it, thanks - but no.

What do you expect them to do? There are only 38% tru-cons in the country. Moderate votes, what you call "watered-down Democrats who just might go for a liberal Republican" are going to have to be sought. (am I really having to say this?)

I can't believe you're saying it too, believe me. Poll after poll shows voters are more conservative than the politicians who represent them on social issues, on foreign policy, on fiscal matters - but the GOP does not stand on or defend many of those issues. Instead, the GOP joins the Democrats and the press in demonizing the Tea Party and other groups on the right who do stand firm on these issues. Since the GOP often agrees with the Democrats on these subjects, they simply are not discussed in the general election and voters who may be deeply concerned by illegal immigration and angered by the post-9/11 growth of the federal security bureaucracy do not see these topics as conservative issues at all. Instead, opposition to amnesty or opposition to domestic national security run amok are treated as beyond the pale by both major parties. What are voters supposed to think?

You don't have to like it, you just have to be realistic.

Why use the word "realistic" when you mean "reactionary"? Your idea of realism will have the GOP continuing to nominate people who would have been considered moderate Democrats as recently as the '90s - and continuing to lose. If a GOP which is increasingly just a timid imitator of the Democratic Party doesn't bother you, I'd think the repeated losing might.

Voters on the left are pissed at Obama for not being left enough.

And after the passage of the ACA, they are clearly wrong. Are you seriously trying to say that because Obama was not able to satisfy every leftist radical, the two-party system has done it's job?

I'll believe the GOP is indistinguishable from the Democrats, when Justice Scalia becomes indistinguishable from Justice Ginsburg.

Scalia was nominated to the SC by Reagan - and someone with his views would not be nominated by Jeb Bush or Christ Christie.