I believe any third party candidate I envision would lose in 2012. It could not be otherwise.
Note, though, that a GOP candidate could lose in 2012, even with no third party candidate.
No, I'm looking to 2014 and 2016.
But also, let me make one thing perfectly clear (was there an echo in here?)
I do not advocate starting a third party today. I think there's a good chance that is where we're headed, but I don't advocate it today.
The Tea Party delivered an unambiguous result and message for the 2010 elections. Next move is up to the Empire.
Btw, if the primary were today, I would support Palin (if a candidate) but I recognize that's not the case.
So I'm keeping an open mind, but applying a filter...is there a candidate who can bring something close to the table that she does, that would not also bring the entrenched hatred she does?
As for the GOP, I'm applying another filter...can the party be reformed and reclaimed? I don't assume so any more...so as the process to 2012 unfolds I'm viewing events in that context...keeping in mind most recognize the process of reform is a marathon, not a sprint.
~70 new seats in Congress suggests it can be done. Is Boehner a conservative or a chameleon? Time will tell...I'll just say that being conservative is like being a lady. If someone has to ask, then the answer is probably no. That speaks against reform.
If the response of the Empire to date is any indication, the backbiting, the undercutting of Palin I see, suggests not.
And Romney? He would be only slightly less disasterous short term for the country than Obama, more so for the long term...he's the establishment's favorite candidate, as were McCain and Dole. I would expect the same results, four more years of Obama, only this time claiming validation of his policies.
If I see that Palin has to run against the GOP establishment as well as the RATS and the house media, and the process produces a Romney as the candidate...then I, as a lifelong GOP voter and supporter (I supported Reagan against Ford in '76) am probably done.
Romney would actually be worse for America than Obama, in that regard. With ObamaCare, there's an ideological battle between government control and private sector run. With RomneyCare vs ObamaCare, the argument becomes one of degrees with the same ideology. That's already a losing position.
It goes from arguing over ice cream or vegetables for dinner, to arguing over what flavor of ice cream.
I know Mitt is trying to fulfill decades worth of Daddy issues by his permanent run for the Oval Office, but for the good of the country, he needs to be defeated. It's better to let Obama run America into the ground and let he and his ideals take the blame for it, then let Romney (and his ideal-less opportunism) do it and destroy 'conservatism' along with it.