[Jim Noble]

I've thought about a Nader-Paul alliance, too.

To make 2008=1860, though, there would need to be two strong challengers to the "major" candidates, and I don't believe Nader OR Paul fill the bill. Furthermore, the left-wing moonbats know very well that Hillary is one of them.

If the GOP nominates a socon, then I think there will be a GOP liberal-RAT conservative "unity" ticket (think Bell-Everett), and there MAY be a right-wing Nader equivalent, as well (think Breckenridge). If the GOP nominates a liberal, there will be a conservative insurgency.

My main point is that the current party system and the increasingly entrepreneurial nature of running for office cannot stand the stresses that are going to be put on it between now and November 2008.

[LibLieSlayer]

I think we will have a battle at the Convention if that is so... it has been decades... but it could be the safety valve that saves us... if needed.

LLS

[Publius]

Two years ago I wrote The Splintering of the Democratic Party, and I wouldn't be surprised to see Albert Gore take a shot at the Green Party nomination. That's more likely than a Nader-Paul alliance.

I wouldn't be surprised to see both parties splinter and the election decided in the House.

[StatenIsland]

“If the GOP nominates a socon, then I think there will be a GOP liberal-RAT conservative “unity” ticket (think Bell-Everett), and there MAY be a right-wing Nader equivalent, as well (think Breckenridge). If the GOP nominates a liberal, there will be a conservative insurgency.”

While I agree that there may be a conservative insurgency if a socially liberal candidate is the GOP nominee, I respectfully disagree on the other predictions.

Those who would vote for Giuliani, either because they genuinely support him, or so that Hillary may be stopped, would NEVER field a third-party, or splinter, candidate - which would, of course, get Hillary elected.

Only the socons would split from the party if a Giuliani-type was the Republican nominee. Everyone else would rally ‘round the nominee no matter who it is, imho.

Such is my dread of a Hillary presidency that I consider myself a “dead-cat” Republican*, in that I’d rather vote for a dead cat than the 2008 Democrat nominee. Dead-cat Republicans have no more problem voting for Rudy than they do Huckabee, because their goals are clear: KEEP THE DEMS OUT OF THE WHITEHOUSE IN 2008.

Most Republicans are dead-cats. Only the most passionate socons are not. So the party splits only with a Rudy nomination, as I see it.

*Apologies to yellow-dog Democrats.