Replacing the Republican Party

[Smokin Joe]

Trump gains more social conservative issues victories; more than any other president on some issues. Apparently, this is not a balanced debate and that is the most that can be said.  And certainly, Trump is more accomplished on conservative issues now than any of his competitors in 2016.

Trump defines some conservatism, the rest is whine and sour grapes.

Border security too; crossings down 47%; to deny these things is just to live on another planet. Foreign policy victories as well.

It is nice that the invasion trains have quit bringing tens of thousands to our borders. Keep in mind that that decrease is down from a high that was inflated by the policies and likely collusion of the last administration.

[sneakypete]

It is nice that the invasion trains have quit bringing tens of thousands to our borders. Keep in mind that that decrease is down from a high that was inflated by the policies and likely collusion of the last administration.

@Smokin Joe @TomSea

 

[Sanguine]

@Sanguine

You are either on drugs or have been dropped on your head a hundred times too many if you think an ethical conservative has ANY chance of being elected to federal office at this time. Being ethical automatically disqualifies you for public office these days,and that goes double for federal office.

Well, Pete, I am/was neither.  So, you might want to reexamine your suppositions.

[Smokin Joe]

I take it you don't get your news from CNN. Trump is a liberal who appeals to white supremacist. Listen to the echo and get with the program. Tune in, turn on, drop out.

Trump is one Republican. We're talking about replacing the GOPe that so many Trump supporters ranted about at length. Since most of the current office holders are GOPe and obstructing the very things President Trump said he'd do, you'd think Trump supporters would agree that changes need to be made, and if they won't change them in the GOP then maybe the Party should be replaced.

We aren't seeing the ACA go away, etc.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

It can't be done.

There you go with little brains.

Of course it can be done.

What you should have said it may not be done.  That is accurate.

[bigheadfred]

There you go with little brains.

Of course it can be done.

What you should have said it may not be done.  That is accurate.

Why can't all these supposed members merely change their party affiliation to something else?

Get the Freedom Caucus, for example, and other like minded people, have them group up, change their affiliation to the same thing. Say B, F, or D. And bod a bing, new party. Get Ted to head it up. They can face the wrath or praise of their constituency later.

[INVAR]

Why can't all these supposed members merely change their party affiliation to something else?

Get the Freedom Caucus, for example, and other like minded people, have them group up, change their affiliation to the same thing. Say B, F, or D. And bod a bing, new party. Get Ted to head it up. They can face the wrath or praise of their constituency later.

Money.  They lose access to the honey pot and, I would imagine none are willing to risk their seat.   Maybe they haven't figured out that the millions of Conservatives who are going to sit home next year is a group ripe and ready to be led into a new paradigm of political opportunity.

[Cyber Liberty]

Money.  They lose access to the honey pot and, I would imagine none are willing to risk their seat.   Maybe they haven't figured out that the millions of Conservatives who are going to sit home next year is a group ripe and ready to be led into a new paradigm of political opportunity.

That's certainly part of it.  In addition, qualifying for ballots is hundreds of times more difficult without the big Party stamp (and by "big" I mean at least as big as the Green Party).

[Free Vulcan]

Why can't all these supposed members merely change their party affiliation to something else?

Get the Freedom Caucus, for example, and other like minded people, have them group up, change their affiliation to the same thing. Say B, F, or D. And bod a bing, new party. Get Ted to head it up. They can face the wrath or praise of their constituency later.

That would be a start. They could even baby step it to be a caucus within a caucus, while making a serious effort to put together a structure and a solid fundraising arm to win primaries. Get a big enough block and you've got leverage.

They already have some of that established, now they need to expand.

[Bigun]

That's certainly part of it.  In addition, qualifying for ballots is hundreds of times more difficult without the big Party stamp (and by "big" I mean at least as big as the Green Party).

It is nearly impossible to get your name on the ballot in Texas as an independent!  And that is not by accident!

[bilo]

Money.  They lose access to the honey pot and, I would imagine none are willing to risk their seat.   Maybe they haven't figured out that the millions of Conservatives who are going to sit home next year is a group ripe and ready to be led into a new paradigm of political opportunity.

If conservatives can't leave the GOP because they would lose access to the honey pot and the Rats would become the majority party the only alternative is to force the Pubs to institute the same party discipline that the Rats exercise. The only way to do this is to punish the Pubs for failing to keep their promises. How do we do that? We sit out the elections if conservatives aren't successful in the primaries.

IOW, it's time to treat the Pubs like the liars and cheats they are, shun them.

I think the Pubs can weather the storm for a couple elections because the Rats are insane, but eventually it will catch up to them and they will be the minority party. At this point I don't really care. What's the point in electing someone who won't represent you.

It's been a surprise to me that it is Pres. Trump who has been trying to keep his promises and the Pub party that won't support the platform they ran on.

[libertybele]

If conservatives can't leave the GOP because they would lose access to the honey pot and the Rats would become the majority party the only alternative is to force the Pubs to institute the same party discipline that the Rats exercise. The only way to do this is to punish the Pubs for failing to keep their promises. How do we do that? We sit out the elections if conservatives aren't successful in the primaries.

IOW, it's time to treat the Pubs like the liars and cheats they are, shun them.

I think the Pubs can weather the storm for a couple elections because the Rats are insane, but eventually it will catch up to them and they will be the minority party. At this point I don't really care. What's the point in electing someone who won't represent you.

It's been a surprise to me that it is Pres. Trump who has been trying to keep his promises and the Pub party that won't support the platform they ran on.

At this point, except for a select few in Congress, what difference does it really make who we vote for?  The result is the same; blame games and a bunch of hollow promises.

[libertybele]

It is nearly impossible to get your name on the ballot in Texas as an independent!  And that is not by accident!

That's what people don't seem to be understanding; it is much more difficult for an Independent to qualify to have their name put on the ballot.

If we take the Constitution Party as an example; right now they are trying to get on the ballot for 2018.  So far they are on the ballot in 14 states, 2 states waiting on signatures, meaning they haven't been able to get on the ballot yet in 36 states.  In 2016, they were on the ballot in 23 states, 22 states as write in - and 5 states not on the ballot.

Logically, if you can't get on the ballot or states won't accept you as a write in candidate, the odds are nearly impossible that you will win.

https://www.constitutionparty.com/elections/ballot-access/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_Party_(United_States)#/media/File:Constitution_Party_ballot_access_(2016).svg

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Why can't all these supposed members merely change their party affiliation to something else?

Get the Freedom Caucus, for example, and other like minded people, have them group up, change their affiliation to the same thing. Say B, F, or D. And bod a bing, new party. Get Ted to head it up. They can face the wrath or praise of their constituency later.

But what does that get you?  You've now got a small rump party of hardcore conservatives who still don't have enough votes in Congress to control anything.  And future elections would become a three way race between Democrats, Republicans, and the New Freedom Party, with former Republicans splitting their votes between the latter two.  How does that not result in a lot more Democrats winning elections?

[libertybele]

But what does that get you?  You've now got a small rump party of hardcore conservatives who still don't have enough votes in Congress to control anything.  And future elections would become a three way race between Democrats, Republicans, and the New Freedom Party, with former Republicans splitting their votes between the latter two.  How does that not result in a lot more Democrats winning elections?

Yes, and even IF by some miracle a 3rd party candidate is seated in the oval office, they are still contending with the liberals and RINO's still remaining in Congress.  The obstructionism from the 2 other parties would be enormous. 

As I previously stated, until such time that a shift to a 3rd party emerges, I will continue to support conservatives and refrain from supporting the GOP itself.

[InHeavenThereIsNoBeer]

But what does that get you?  You've now got a small rump party of hardcore conservatives who still don't have enough votes in Congress to control anything.  And future elections would become a three way race between Democrats, Republicans, and the New Freedom Party, with former Republicans splitting their votes between the latter two.  How does that not result in a lot more Democrats winning elections?

I suppose the hope is that the Republicans would recognize the problem and start compromising and/or moving to the right and/or go extinct.

I mean, we do have compromise today.  We give the moderates our money and votes, and in return they allow us to give them our money and votes.  But an alternative form where they actually try things are way once in a while (or even once) would be nice.

[aligncare]

But what does that get you?  You've now got a small rump party of hardcore conservatives who still don't have enough votes in Congress to control anything.  And future elections would become a three way race between Democrats, Republicans, and the New Freedom Party, with former Republicans splitting their votes between the latter two.  How does that not result in a lot more Democrats winning elections?

A good-government constitutionalist can dream can't he?

[Mom MD]

But what does that get you?  You've now got a small rump party of hardcore conservatives who still don't have enough votes in Congress to control anything.  And future elections would become a three way race between Democrats, Republicans, and the New Freedom Party, with former Republicans splitting their votes between the latter two.  How does that not result in a lot more Democrats winning elections?

As opposed to now when we have democrats posing as republicans winning elections?  At least we would have one honest party.

[truth_seeker]

Now after 600 posts, virtually NO discussion about ADMITTING TO THE PISS POOR JOB, of convincing Voters, of the need for MORE CONSERVATIVE POLICIES AND OFFICE HOLDERS.

key words: CONVINCING, VOTERS

What is the point, of a new vessel to house the same old shortcomings? A smaller vessel, with less money and fewer members?

Common sense is not common any more. Too many "true conservatives" are logic and math challenged.

[txradioguy]

Now after 600 posts, virtually NO discussion about ADMITTING TO THE PISS POOR JOB, of convincing Voters, of the need for MORE CONSERVATIVE POLICIES AND OFFICE HOLDERS.

key words: CONVINCING, VOTERS

What is the point, of a new vessel to house the same old shortcomings? A smaller vessel, with less money and fewer members?

Common sense is not common any more. Too many "true conservatives" are logic and math challenged.

Its been mentioned.  You just missed it.

[INVAR]

But what does that get you?  You've now got a small rump party of hardcore conservatives who still don't have enough votes in Congress to control anything.  And future elections would become a three way race between Democrats, Republicans, and the New Freedom Party, with former Republicans splitting their votes between the latter two.  How does that not result in a lot more Democrats winning elections?

This logic is hugely disingenuous.  Conservatives and Republicans handed the GOP the reins of power because they CAMPAIGNED on ridding us of Socialism, ObamaCare and implementing Conservative principles and ideals.

They have REFUSED to do so. Instead they attempted to tweak Obama's agenda by burning their own name of ownership into it and expand it, while pretending to ease the pain and suffering Obamacare's mechanisms have wrought.

Voting Republican has only illustrated that the voters have elected Democrats running as Republicans.  What difference does it make if more Democrats win elections - given we are being handed the same results when voters handed the GOP the majority.

No, what was perpetrated on the voters was FRAUD.  They voted for pretend Conservative Republicans and got "moderate" Democrats imposing policy instead.

At least the Democrats know and understand what they get with their vote.  Republicans..... get a liberal agenda passed and Conservative measures stalled out and blocked.

So we're better off voting for actual Conservatives in a new party, or vote Democrat and get the same thing you would get voting for a Republican.

[INVAR]

Now after 600 posts, virtually NO discussion about ADMITTING TO THE PISS POOR JOB, of convincing Voters, of the need for MORE CONSERVATIVE POLICIES AND OFFICE HOLDERS.

key words: CONVINCING, VOTERS

There is truth to this statement.  More than half the population WANTS Communism/Socialism. Convincing them of their interests in voting for Conservative principles is something not seen from the GOP since Reagan.  The fact is the GOP cannot convince anyone of voting for Conservative policies, because THEY do not believe in those principles themselves. They believe in the same thing Democrats do: bigger, larger but 'better managed' Big Government Collectivism.

What is the point, of a new vessel to house the same old shortcomings? A smaller vessel, with less money and fewer members?

We will not be voting for frauds.  We will not be voting for Liberal Democrats running as Republicans.  We will not be voting for people who are beholden to K Street lobbyists and who hold us in contempt if we dare try to hold their feet to the fire of the campaign they ran on.

Common sense is not common any more. Too many "true conservatives" are logic and math challenged.

Because that is all it is to people like you - a game.  Another sporting event.  Numbers and gerrymandering to get a 'win' in terms of who sits in a seat, when the fruits do not match up.

Principles trump winning for winning's sake - which is all you got - and little to show for it.

[Free Vulcan]

The conservative wing is going to have to raise huge money to support both new and existing candidates, and it's going to have to network with conservative PACS to bolster those numbers.

That done, you have the ability to create a wing of the party with clout to affect legislation. That's where it needs to start.

[InHeavenThereIsNoBeer]

The conservative wing is going to have to raise huge money to support both new and existing candidates, and it's going to have to network with conservative PACS to bolster those numbers.

That done, you have the ability to create a wing of the party with clout to affect legislation. That's where it needs to start.

Probably.

Perhaps(?) equally important would be finding ways to use the money they raise more effectively.

I don't know how much the POTUS candidates spent this time around.  Last time I was hearing near a billion each, so let's call it $630 million.  That's $10 per vote.  But not really.  Most people are going to vote on party, so the real question, IMO, is how much the candidates spent for every voter that they were able to convince to vote for them.  Now that $/vote number is much larger.

And I happen to think most of that is wasted anyway.  How many times per day do you have to see the same ad?  How many fliers do we throw away with the rest of the junk mail?  I'm not by any means an expert here -- but then if I was people would be paying me for my opinion, which just might be to keep giving me more money to advise you on spending what's left, kind of like your broker, I don't care if you buy or sell, just do something so I get a commission.

I think Trump is probably a case in point.  Between twitter and manipulating the media, I bet he ran a pretty darn tight campaign (except when paying himself and family).  President Twitter?  I wouldn't be surprised if that takes off once the history books are written.

[bigheadfred]

But what does that get you?  You've now got a small rump party of hardcore conservatives who still don't have enough votes in Congress to control anything.  And future elections would become a three way race between Democrats, Republicans, and the New Freedom Party, with former Republicans splitting their votes between the latter two.  How does that not result in a lot more Democrats winning elections?

You have that small group. I think it could be a significant group by the time some of those people are up for reelection. If a senator has 3,4, or 5 years, even 2, to work on it, things can change.

I'm not the type of person you can tell it can't be done. It can be done. And a lot faster than people who think otherwise believe.