Posted on 11/03/2009 9:25:23 AM PST by Mozilla
This bombshell from Glenn Beck is about three minutes into the segment on Thursday. Beck said leaving the governor’s mansion in Alaska was a smart move.
Beck: “Smart move. And I think she’s also positioning herself for a third party. By the time this election runs around for the president, I’m sorry, but unless the Republicans and the Democrats wake up, a third party will win.”
We shall see how that works out. Many people are angry at Republicans right now. The message sent to Dede Scozzafava is being noticed in Washington. Believe me. But 3 years is a long time in politics. We shall see.
It is time to begin thinking more about the person being considered for public office than for the party.
Also of note:
Why are leftist women jealous of Palin
Please show where I said that because I'm soooo close to just calling you a liar.
As it is you are merely setting up ficional straw man arguments.
Depends on who the GOP runs.
If the ‘conservative party’ runs the likes of Alan Keyes the answer will always be yes yes and yes I will vote for the GOP
While it would be a longshot, if there was a time coming where a 3rd party run COULD succeed, we are possibly entering it.
It really all depends on who wins the GOP nomination, and how badly the economy is PERCEIVED to be in summer/fall 2011. The GOP would have to nominate someone who could pull at least a few % points from Obama.
The model for this type of run is a mishmash of Jesse Ventura in Minnesota and Ross Perot in 1992.
Ballot access and campaign/party structure is of course, and as mentioned by others, HUGE. The conditions might exist though to create a groundswell of outsider “take over the town” anger.
It would take a very unpopular Obama down to the Clinton/dem baseline of support, and the GOP nominating an uninspiring, Dem Lite candidate that infuriates conservatives and turns off independents who also wouldn’t vote for Obama under any circumstances.
That is quite a table of dice rolls to run through, BUT all of them are possible.
The rub is....who would be the GOP candidate to cause this? While I think Romney is a bit like Bill Clinton, twist his position to suit the moment, he WILL say all the right things on the issues. I’m not sure people would be happy with him, but would they get really, really angry he was the nominee? He IS a weird combination...Massachusetts Gov/Mormon/changed positions/Wall Street guy/considered good on the economy but had a horrible health car plan. Palin could probably sweep a lot of the South including Texas.
Tim Pawlenty? I’m still not as well informed about him to make much of an honest analysis. He isn’t inspiring, but I don’t think he would incite anger either. Again...Palin could probably swing a lot of the South from him.
Huckabee. For all the complaints, he is still too much on the right for Palin to run around him 3rd party. I don’t think he will win the nomination anyway.
Hard to see anyone else getting the nomination at this point, though I suppose you never know. If it were a Tom Ridge or Crist or some other middle of the roader I could see it.
The possiblity would be
Very Unpopular Obama 35% Faltering Romney 29% Palin Independent 36% ? I haven’t run the electoral math. I would guess Palin would HAVE to take Florida and Texas. Romney would have to take Mass and maybe take either CA or NY from Obama..maybe take away PA?
What a mess that would be. A bit like trying to thread a needle while drunk and being tossed about in a tornado.
I turned the knob this morning when he said that there were decent Democrats.
Your post at 26.... your words. If you do not mean them then be more clear.
I dunno about that....imo, running as a GOP is a mark against a candidate in my book, not a good thing.
Tie goes against the GOP.
How many times has the GOP told you they’d respect you in the morning only to leave a little cash on the nightstand, leave and not call the next day?
Abused voter syndrome...the GOP will learn, they’ll change, they’ll get better, it was just an isolated case, besides, I deserved it....
You got a point. I can not vote for a rino anymore. If they win, it is no different than a Democrat.
I disagree with Medved, but it is academic.
Are you even old enough to remember Ronald Reagan’s efforts to get the nomination?
Whether you are or not, join us who want to take our party back. Quit chasing after Ron Paul
Sorry to burst your RINO inspired bubble, but Perot took as many votes away from the Democrats in 92’ as he did from the Republicans. I know because I was one of them.
I vote my conscious. The rest can handicap a “horse race” if they must.
Yeah, that was a big false ASSumption you made.
We today have the example of RR, and we have a lot MORE conservatives nationwide than he had to work with. Conservatism was not something that was always there. IT was a movement that more or less began in the 50s, with leadership from WF Buckley, and people like Goldwater. Conservatives were a small, small part of the party after 1964. RR won the nomination on the force of his personality, and then he convinced enough people of the verity of conservatism over the next 8 years that it BECAME a majority of the GOP by the time he was done. The conservative majority within the GOP decreased over time, especially among office holders and the RNC. But the base that Reagan created is still conservative, and it needs a new leader to energize them and to bring the waivering moderates back to conservatism.
Conservatism is in better shape now than it was in 1978, by a long shot, in major part because people remember the example of the 80s. It simply remains for people to do what RR did, capture the GOP, and it will be easier now than it was then. Stop trying to elect Marxists by pushing third parties, you are either a Dem operative or a deluded person. Study game theory, and you will understand why our system always devolves to two parties. Your choice is to use one of them as the vehicle for your ideology, not to form a new one.
I can think of one, Gene Taylor (Miss.), but even he is there for the Democrats when they really need him.
I cannot imagine what mental disease I would have to suffer to want to be associated with the GOP....Dole...Bush 1...and 2...McCaine....Dede whatshername NY23...holy cow, the party that nominated the man that destroyed their Congressional majority in both houses!
I have far too much self respect.
Two equally qualified candidates and if one is non GOP then there is where my vote probably goes.
You can continue kneeling for the GOP, be my guest. Not me, no way.
Go chase Ron Paul Have a good life and when the rest of us are campaigning for strong conservatives be sure and bitch about them too
No matter what, pre-Civil war American elections in a young country with new politics , no political traditions or long term political structures and an electorate made up of the purest conservatives only, white, male, and protestant, have nothing to do with modern elections or possibilites for conservatives.
Mine and your definitation differs. To me, no one that supports and advocates the killing of unborn and partially born babies and promote the practice of sexual deviancy and perversion is decent.
I’ll vote for him.
Obama was only able to pick off a RINO.
Easy pickins’.
Flat out not true, your anecdotal experience notwithstanding. Perot took far more from Bush than from Clinton, enough to swing the difference. MSM have been trying to push your claim ever since, and I guess you buy into their lies.
Far more important was what he did to the dynamic of the race in April and May, not what percent he got in Nobember. When Perot was hot, he was neck and neck with Bush, and Clinton was far behind in third. He was attracting Republican voters who were pissed off at Bush. Then he got out, with an idiotic claim about his daughter's wedding. I believe he and Clinton made a deal. Whatever, he was a nut and he was working for the Dems, one way or another.
When he got out, those voters who would never ever have voted for a Dem had psychologically left the GOP and Bush. They gravitated to Clinton, especially after Perot told them the Dems were just fine with him. Clinton lied about being a socialist and a New Democrat, and that gave him just enough Reagan votes to defeat a liberal Republican.
Without Perot, Bush would have won the first post Reagan "hold your nose and vote for the Republican" election, probably by 53-47 or so. There would have been a substantial contingent that stayed home because of the "read my lips", but in the end, the vast majority would have held their nose and voted GOP. Instead, Perot served as their bridge to voting for a Dem. And that was enough to get him the election, at 43 percent.
Your understanding of what was going on with Perot is very superficial.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.