The Whigs ran presidential candidates in 1856 and 1860. They lost both elections, but they were still a national party in those elections. The Democrats were the only party with a cohesive message and platform, and that’s why they were winning elections.
My original point stands, tho. The idea that there can be only two political parties, and that third parties never, ever amount to anything is disproven by the history of the GOP itself. The GOP is increasingly heading down the road to irrelevancy by their own hand and the selection of a feckless, stupid and utterly incompetent leadership (eg, Steele) and at some point, the GOP will either be taken over by the people it purports to represent, or it will suffer defeat and become irrelevant and people will create another party to represent their issues.
And many of the people in the new “third party” will be disaffected Republicans, much as many of the original Republicans were disaffected Whigs (eg, Abraham Lincoln).
Calling the Whigs a "national party" in 1856 and 1860 is sort of like calling the Constitution Party of today a "national party." Sure, in a technical sense it's true, since they do have a couple of schmoes who constitute the "state party organisation" in each state, run out of one guy's basement. But to actually try to apply this term credibly is simply laughable.
My original point stands, tho. The idea that there can be only two political parties, and that third parties never, ever amount to anything is disproven by the history of the GOP itself.
No it doesn't. Not by a long shot. The Whigs were not a second party after 1852. In fact, most of the Whigs became Republicans between 1852 and 1860, which is why the GOP rose so suddenly to national prominence. It was essentially filling the void left by the Whigs after their collapse. The idea that the GOP is in some similar state today, and that there's this vacuum just waiting to be filled by some rinky-dink third party that is guaranteed to appeal to only about 10% of the population is absolute balderdash. It's the same sort of childish wishful thinking that we so commonly see on the Left in places like Democratic Underground.
The GOP is increasingly heading down the road to irrelevancy by their own hand and the selection of a feckless, stupid and utterly incompetent leadership (eg, Steele) and at some point, the GOP will either be taken over by the people it purports to represent, or it will suffer defeat and become irrelevant and people will create another party to represent their issues.
Every agrees that the GOP "leadership" has big problems. The obvious answer is to replace the "leadership," not waste time, money, and energy on the quixotic quest to convince millions of grassroots level registered Republicans to leave their party and join some egomaniac's third party experiment. No thanks. The only things irrelvant are third partyist delusions.
And many of the people in the new “third party” will be disaffected Republicans, much as many of the original Republicans were disaffected Whigs (eg, Abraham Lincoln).
Yeah. Good luck with that. There's a reason that, despite the failures of the GOP leadership for decades, that no third party has appeared on the scene to present any credible competition. It's because these third parties are usually so abrasive in their approach or so irrelevant in their appeal that there's no hope of them ever being more than fringe spoilers that help the Dimocrats win in tight races.
The same thing is happening now on the GOP side. The infection started 30 years ago and got a foothold. It ascended to the top in 1994, but was not broad enough or bold enough to take over the establishment. Gingrich, while being a great leader by some measures in fomenting and enabling the revolution in the House, for one reason or another was not destined to lead the majority party for a long period. Because of some of his personal and political shortcomings, the party really had no replacement for him, and foundered into mediocrity with Hastert at the helm and a Bush who had no ability to really inspire or lead in traditional conservative fashion with regard to economics and deficits. He was unwilling to engage in necessary brinkmanship the way Clinton did (and Obama undoubtedly will try) with a Congress.
But the ascendancy you will see in the next two cycles will be very broad, I believe. There is a real stable of true-blue leaders who will be fabulous, I predict.