[Impy]

People have been asking this question for years. Answer: No. Modern divisions in the party are NOTHING compared to divisions in the Whig party over slavery. (Not mentioned: How the rats stayed united until 1860 by driving slavery opponents out of the party with Northern rats taking a “pro-choice” stance)

And the Whigs didn’t really go anywhere, nearly all Northern Whigs became Republicans and Republican policy was Northern Whig policy.

In our electoral system you’re gonna have 2 parties, no matter what they’re called. If in a fantasy scenario Republicans split, with conservatives forming a new party that supplants the GOP as the main center-right party, it would only be a matter of time before the Republicans/RINOs joined them, and voila same party with a new name. And meanwhile due to the vote splitting the rats will have huge supermajorites in Congress that they will use to rape Lady Liberty and beat her into a coma.

But hey, talking about nonsense like this more fun than reality.

[gusty]

I know you know, but I bet you would get a lot of blank stares if you asked anyone what the Whig Party stood for. It is interesting how the Whigs and Democrats differed. In a nutshell, the Democrats at the time were dead set against any Federal spending on infrastructure, they called it internal improvements. While the Whigs were proponents of the Federal government spending on infrastructure programs, not to create jobs, but to increase the prosperity of business. Neither party would be able to fathom our times, where the Federal government spends the vast majority of its money on transfer payments of various kinds. It would not make any sense to them, be they Andrew Jackson or Henry Clay.