This is actually a really important post, because it cuts to the core of what is dividing so many of us.
@bigheadfred , I think if we did what you said, those "really really really principled conservatives" would constitute maybe -- maybe -- 20% of the vote. If I'm being generous. Probably closer to 15%. That's my educated guesstimate after seeing who wins primaries and observing politics for a long time.
To my way of thinking, that means that splitting off into a new "true hardcore conservatives only" party is electoral suicide. There would be the Democrats, a GOP consisting only of moderate Republicans, and then the Conservative (or Constitution, or whatever) Party. It would absolutely hand election after election to Democrats. And I'd point out that the "really really really principled progressives" are probably about the same percentage of the vote. But they are relentless, and keep their eyes on the prize.. And they're massively aided by a sympathetic media, and entertaining opinion-shapers (among low information voters, anyway). But they stay within the Democratic Party, and so get to shape policy.
I think that means that conservatives must build coalitions to be successful, and the only vehicle to build such coalitions is the GOP. So, our only realistic chance of regaining power is to get the right conservative candidate who has enough charisma to unite that 20% and win in the primaries, win the nomination and support of the other half of the party, and then starting from that 40% base, be a strong enough candidate to get over the top in November. I think that is our only plausible route to victory.
The thought that we can win simply because our ideas are right ignores the reality that being right isn't enough to convince a majority of voters.
I see that as the only feasible way to get a conservative in office. So, though I have no doubt at all as to the strong conservative beliefs of someone like @Smokin Joe , I think he and others calling for an independent conservative party would succeed only in destroying whatever chance there is to actually put a conservative in the White House. I just don't see it happening. There just aren't enough of us to win on ideology alone. If there were, we should have been able to dominate the GOP primaries with ease, every time. And we can't/haven't.
I don't think you, Smokin Joe, or other conservatives advocating a new party are bad people, or liberals, or anything else negative. I simply think you overestimate the political/electoral (as opposed to intellectual/moral) strength of the "true" conservative movement.
ETA: Now, perhaps my estimates are wrong. Maybe there really are as solid 35-40% of the electorate who are true, hardcore conservatives who can win a three way race. But the fact that I don't believe an independent, hardcore conservative party can get 35-40% of the vote, and therefore don't support such an idea, does not make me a liberal. It simply means my sense of the prevailing political sentiment is wildly wrong.
Being right seems to be a prerequisite for being in the minority nowadays, granted. However, I think your estimates are wrong.
Let's start with those who voted for Cruz in the last Primary season. A significant group, 25% of the GOP primary voters, as measured against total primary votes. We do not know what percentage of those primary votes in the total were 'sabotage' crossover votes by Democrats, although few crossover votes were likely to be for Cruz. The Democrats did not want to face Cruz in the General Election.
Why just count the Cruz voters? Because of all the candidates, his was the most conservative platform, especially when he espoused the free market position on ethanol and an elimination of the ethanol mandate. Mandates do not free markets make.
Because the GOP hasn't had the good sense to close its primaries, any of those crossover votes present likely make the Conservative vote, as measured by Cruz votes, an even larger proportion of the actual Republican base—more less conservative votes makes the percentage of conservative votes seem smaller, especially if they are Democrats who have no intent on voting GOP in the General, just out voting for the candidate they want to face in the General Election.
Maintaining open primaries has aided the establishment in minimizing the apparent role Conservative voters play.
How can I say that? Let's look at the logic. First, Conservatives are repeatedly told they are a small or even insignificant minority during elections and especially afterward.
Yet, who gets blamed for GOP losses in POTUS elections?
That same "insignificant" minority.
Whoa.
Either that minority isn't so insignificant as it is being told, or the GOP muckety-mucks are trying to 'guilt' the voters into voting for more Leftist candidates than they would normally support, by accusing Conservatives of not voting.
Leaving the primaries open may support the "insignificance" claims by adding Liberal votes to the mix, but those votes will go Democrat in the general and the Party brass know it. That's why the tune changes for the General election, and why non-voting and party defectors of all types can be logically blamed for losses like McCain and especially Romney.
The Conservative bloc is larger than the GOP will admit.
Note, too, that while I consider their support for other candidates misguided, many of those who voted for other candidates besides Cruz are hitting on most of their cylinders when it comes to being Conservative. Some got sucked into a revival tent style euphoria, hearing what they wanted to hear, and went all-in emotionally, some decided they found the claims of their candidate to be credible, and that they were going to do Conservative things, or some just don't realize those different languages they hear spoken in WalMart in 'interior' states like Iowa or Indiana came across our borders surreptitiously. Some of the issues don't have enough importance to some voters that a particular stance is a deal-breaker, and some might agree with a dash of liberalism in their policy soup.
Consider, though, for those not finding support for their critical issue(s) from a candidate, support becomes increasingly less enthusiastic, down to outright hostility to the thought of casting a ballot for that person. I think that the declining turnout for the GOP candidates for POTUS is a reflection of that disaffection, and that has been building since Daddy Bush got his well-read lips slapped. (“No new taxes”, indeed, although the phrase “New World Order” didn’t help.)
The interpretation of the cause of that disaffection varies, and apparently the GOP elites felt that becoming more Leftist (possibly a reflection of their personal bias) was the solution to the declining vote.
I disagree, and have believed the cure to be a shift to the Right, and even Trump supporters support Trump largely because they give credibility to his claims of addressing key issues which still vex us all: That of border security and immigration, along with national security.
The greatest difference, oddly enough between those who support Trump and those of us who won't isn't so much an issue of policy (with the exception of the abortion issue), so much as an issue of credibility. #nevertrump folks have, as a rule, looked at the candidate's past actions, from 20-30 years ago, his business conduct, and his behaviour during the Primaries to the present day and do not find him to be credibly as conservative as he claims, nor do they have any reason to believe that he will fulfill any of the promises he has made on the campaign trail.
Note that the issue is not the issues, so much as the credibility of the person who is professing to have the solutions which a large number of people firmly believe he has absolutely no intent nor ability to deliver. There is the biggest bone of contention. His voting bloc is composed of folks who believe him, folks who pray the first group is right and vote for him out of fear of the other major candidate, and folks who would vote for a wormy pickle if it had an 'R' after it.
He is opposed by others of similar stances on the issues who do not find one thing he says credible and see him supported by the same people who have been making the same claims but failing to deliver on any of their promises. For the latter group, it has become painfully evident after often a lifetime of GOP support that those setting policy and priorities in the GOP have no intent to resolve these issues in a favorable fashion.
The vicious rift over supporting the current candidate, often personal in nature, often intense in discussion, has exposed the fact that the Party establishment has had no intention of actually promoting Conservative stances on the issues in effect. The lip service is louder, more brash, and claiming it will do more than ever, but if it didn't accomplish the little things when it could have, why would anyone believe it will now move mountains for Conservative causes?
Even the rules changes made at the convention indicate otherwise, and we've all been played for suckers before.
I think we all agree that the borders need to be secured.
We all want a strong military and defense.
We want our veterans treated well--they have earned it, sometimes at tremendous cost, and when that cost has been the ultimate price, we want their dependents to be cared for as well for they pay that price daily in the absence of their loved one.
Many of us want to see the lives of the unborn defended, too.
We want Federal regulations to be reduced in number, scope, and often intensity. Will that .00005 PPM make a significant difference in your drinking water and health? Or is it just another added expense for the industry, and ultimately the consumer, or will it just drive manufacturing overseas?
We want a reduction in the number of agencies, especially those which have no Constitutional Authorization. We don't want the TSA expanded; it hasn't captured a terrorist yet for all the scanning, groping, and digging through our stuff--an awful lot of which has disappeared.
We want the government to keep it's grubby paws and laws off our guns, as we see them as our last line of defense against thieves, murderers, and rapists of all stripes, and ultimately our source of basic security against all comers.
We want sane fiscal policy which stops subsidizing those who are here illegally, stops paying people to be non-productive, stops encouraging the breakdown of the family, supports the ‘studies’ which only call for more government control, and raises costs for everyone else by artificially supporting prices on everything from housing to food.
We want the government out of our toilets, light sockets, health care, back yards, lunch menus, cars, conversations, locker rooms and bathrooms, and a host of other things it has no d@mned business screwing around with.
On all that and so much more, we agree. We just don’t agree on how to go about it, nor who should be the leader in that fight.
That is not necessarily a solid, monolithic, conservative bloc.
It is composed of Constitutionalists, Old School GOP Conservatives (Goldwater/Reagan and anti-Marxists), Social Conservatives up to and including evangelical Christians, Pro-life people who aren't necessarily deeply religious, fiscal and economic Conservatives who are sick of seeing their and their children's futures spent into oblivion and debt, often equally concerned with trade and the business economy from employer to employee standpoint, and those deeply concerned with national security from the Military to the borders to immigration policy.
Other one-issue groups exist who will see the positions of the candidates as a deal-breaker.
What will bring in their votes? Obviously, the proper and credible stance on those core issues most important to the voter, be those RKBA, Right to Life, Economic and Trade Policy, Social issues, The Budget and Spending, National Defense and Law and Order, and for many, the sheer and overwhelming size and scope of Federal Governance.
What will send those votes away? The wrong stance on the above, with some single issues being enough to cost a candidate support.
We won't count those dissuaded by the smear campaign, the worst in 100 years.
Judging by overall votes, we get maybe 10-15% of the voting public. Maybe more, after all a lot of people have thrown in the towel in disgust, but let's stick with those numbers.
Consider, blacks represent roughly 13% of the
population, and an even smaller voting bloc, but they have the ability to have the Democrats sink or swim, just by voting or not. As a result, Democrats regularly make concessions to that and other even smaller blocs within their party to garner their votes.
It is evident from the past performance of the GOP that we have no voice within it, only the snide contempt of the party elite. The attitude has been one of
'eff them. where else are they going to go', they'll get in line, they're more afraid of the Dems than mad at us, just wait and see.' Well, we see how well that has worked--not at all. “Getting in line” hasn’t moved the ball in the right direction.
Apparently, as long as the bloc is voting with the GOP and expected to wear the brand and stay on the plantation, not one damned thing is going to change. There is no need for the Party to do so.
Enter an electoral game changer. By drawing off what could amount to 15% of the vote, the Constitution (or other) Party would show the GOP we're not gonna take it any more. Other voters, disaffected by the treatment within the GOP and still looking for a 'home' might join that. Nixon spoke of a 'silent majority', and I think one exists again, reflected in the declining voter numbers during the last two elections. No one has been courting the Conservative vote who has provided more than a baseless hope that maybe this time, just maybe, they might act a little more like conservatives when it is time to vote on policy, reduce spending, etc...
If the GOP wants our votes, it is time to make good on some old promises, do what they were sent to DC to do, and play by the rules they impose on the rest of us, or we're going to put them out of a job, even if it means just pulling back and letting them lose (the only way to clear the way for more conservative candidates). Of course, having our own candidates and a presence in Congress would be even better. The GOP has to earn our vote with actions, not just promises.
Only one party takes a truly Constitutional stance in its platform toward the issues. After all, the basis for much of what Conservatives want is to be found in the Constitution, and repeatedly we see frustration because that isn’t being followed, or the interpretation thereof plays fast and loose with original intent and the English Language.
There is no need to play pattycake over policy—it’s right there in the platform, already. It’s a turn-key party, it just needs an infusion of support, and what’s not to like?
The biggest reasons for not voting for a third party:
They're all whacko birds. (nope)
Your vote will be wasted (it's wasted on a party which won't do what I want, anyway).
The other guys will get in!!! (When the guys who are supposed to be friendly to the causes I feel important aren't doing any good nor stopping the harm, does it matter? The same policies I don't want are going through anyway.)
You can't win. (Tell it to the guys who replaced the Whigs. It is high time for a change in the right direction.).
