What if.... 2016...... a scenario

Statistikhengst

Diamond Member
Nov 21, 2013
45,564
11,756
2,070
deep within the statistical brain!!
Mike Huckabee, former Republican presidential candidate from 2008 who lost in the primaries to John McCain, and likely with his eyes on the prize again in 2016, recently said that he might bolt from the GOP over gay marriage, should the GOP "cave" on the issue.

This got me to thinking.....what would happen were the Evangelical / Fundamentalistic Christians to bolt from the GOP and form their own party?

First, let's take a look at some maps.

Here is the region that is considered the "Bible Belt" of our Union:

BibleBelt.png


Source:

Bible Belt - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Let's overlay that with a map, by county:


Religion-in-America-map.gif



Now, that information is somewhat out of date, but I bet that the county sketch is pretty much the same today. The red in that map represents the Baptists, the majority of which, at least in the South, are Southern Baptists.

Now, let's take a look at Evangelicals as a larger group:

Fundies by state.png



In this map, we see three states where Evangelicals account for more than 50% of those states' populations: Tennessee, Arkansas and Oklahoma. Interesting that those three are right on the old Mason-Dixon Line. Five states in relatively close proximity to those three states have Evangelical Christians as being between 41%-50% of their respective populations: Mississippi, Alabama, South Carolina, North Carolina and Kentucky.

Statistically, this can very well mean that those 8 states could be states with enough advantage in the general population for a third party (Christian Party) candidate to actually win some of those states in a National Presidential Election.

So, let's say that in 2016, the GOP bursts apart, the Fundamentalistic Christians (Evangelicals, Southern Baptists) bolt from the Republican Party and form their own political party: The American Christian Party, with Mike Huckabee as their nominee. And let's say, for good measure, that the Democrats nominate Hillary Clinton and the GOP nominates Rand Paul.

With the GOP split, it goes without saying that the core DEM states on the East Coast and the West Coast are easily massive landslide victories for Clinton, with the GOP vote split. It also would mean massive landslide for her in the usual crew of battleground suspects: Ohio, Virginia, Florida, to a lesser degree, Iowa.

Were the GOP to split, then a massive landslide for the Democrats would be the logical result and could result in a map something like this:

2016 threeway race Clinton-Paul-Huckabee.png


In this scenario map above, where you see the word "undecided", that would be Huckabee, and I could see him taking the three states where Evangelicals are more than 51% of the state's population, plus at least one more state, in this case, Alabama. I could see Rand Paul carrying his home state of Kentucky, neighboring West Virginia, South Carolina, the three core states in the West (Utah, Idaho and Wyoming) and Alaska. And Hillary would easily win the rest. Now, what is missing on this map would be color differentiations to show narrow margins vs. wide margins. Since a Democrat wins NY by +25 to +29 in a two man race, in a three man race, the margin could shoot up to as high as +40. And with the GOP vote split in a state like North Dakota, Hillary could win by +3 to +5.

On the NPV level, it could be something like:

Clinton: 49%
Paul: 33%
Huckabee: 17%
other: 1%

Margin: Clinton +16

(In 1956, when Eisenhower won with +15, he won 41 out of 48 states. In 1988, when Bush 41 won by almost +8, he won 40 out of 50 states)

Now, this is just an exercise in possibilities. I am not saying that this is going to happen at all.

But what I am saying is that were the GOP to lose it's fundamental Christian base, it would stand absolutely no chance on the national level of winning the Presidency, period. One only has to look at 1912 or 1992 to see what unbelievably lopsided results a 3-man race with this kind of dynamic can bring with it. We have also seen, in 1948 and 1968, a Southern third party candidate (Strom Thurmond, George Wallace) win 4-5 states in the South, and with the South being the home of the Bible Belt, it only stands to reason that a Christian Party candidate, with his base in the South, could definitely win some states - it's simple numbers, folks. But this would also pretty much kill the GOP in the rest of the country, for even in states like Missouri, where the DEMS may only get 42% of the vote, that is enough to easily win against a GOP split into two parties.


Food for thought.
 
Last edited:
The social conservatives are the foot soldiers of the GOP - they are deeper believers and invest more in time than do the fiscal conservatives and the Rockefeller Republicans. The TEA Party faction though are giving them a run for their money.

The social conservatives have been very loyal and really not gotten much in return, so I'm not sure what Huckabee could realistically promise them.

Look at how Governor Palin whips the TEA Party base into shape and gets them to hold their nose and vote for guys like Hatch. The social conservatives also have people who whip them to get out and vote for Republicans.

I don't disagree with the analysis of disastrous outcomes if the conservatives split into factions, but I don't see it happening. I see a lot of conservatives focused on judicial appointments because they've seen first hand the mayhem and corruption which results from putting liberals on the bench and they only way to restore standards and competence to the judiciary is to have conservatives appointing good jurists and they can't do that if out of power.

From my perspective I think you missed the mark - the more likely split is to come from a Green Party sapping Democratic votes. Obviously it wouldn't be geographically focused like your Christian Party scenario so that would open up some interesting scenarios about where such defections could flip the outcomes.
 
I could see anti-war Democrats bailing. Obama, the Nobel Prize winner has been anything but a peace president. Hillary loves to play war.

The one sort of iconoclastic candidate for 2016 is Rand Paul. With his stance on decriminalizing marijuana, and reluctance to use the military overseas, and social libertarianism, he could pull some votes from the left. With his fiscal libertarianism, he could pull some votes from the right.
 
Mike Huckabee, former Republican presidential candidate from 2008 who lost in the primaries to John McCain, and likely with his eyes on the prize again in 2016, recently said that he might bolt from the GOP over gay marriage, should the GOP "cave" on the issue.

This got me to thinking.....what would happen were the Evangelical / Fundamentalistic Christians to bolt from the GOP and form their own party?

First, let's take a look at some maps.

Here is the region that is considered the "Bible Belt" of our Union:

BibleBelt.png


Source:

Bible Belt - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Let's overlay that with a map, by county:


Religion-in-America-map.gif



Now, that information is somewhat out of date, but I bet that the county sketch is pretty much the same today. The red in that map represents the Baptists, the majority of which, at least in the South, are Southern Baptists.

Now, let's take a look at Evangelicals as a larger group:

View attachment 33372


In this map, we see three states where Evangelicals account for more than 50% of those states' populations: Tennessee, Arkansas and Oklahoma. Interesting that those three are right on the old Mason-Dixon Line. Five states in relatively close proximity to those three states have Evangelical Christians as being between 41%-50% of their respective populations: Mississippi, Alabama, South Carolina, North Carolina and Kentucky.

Statistically, this can very well mean that those 8 states could be states with enough advantage in the general population for a third party (Christian Party) candidate to actually win some of those states in a National Presidential Election.

So, let's say that in 2016, the GOP bursts apart, the Fundamentalistic Christians (Evangelicals, Southern Baptists) bolt from the Republican Party and form their own political party: The American Christian Party, with Mike Huckabee as their nominee. And let's say, for good measure, that the Democrats nominate Hillary Clinton and the GOP nominates Rand Paul.

With the GOP split, it goes without saying that the core DEM states on the East Coast and the West Coast are easily massive landslide victories for Clinton, with the GOP vote split. It also would mean massive landslide for her in the usual crew of battleground suspects: Ohio, Virginia, Florida, to a lesser degree, Iowa.

Were the GOP to split, then a massive landslide for the Democrats would be the logical result and could result in a map something like this:

View attachment 33373

In this scenario map above, where you see the word "undecided", that would be Huckabee, and I could see him taking the three states where Evangelicals are more than 51% of the state's population, plus at least one more state, in this case, Alabama. I could see Rand Paul carrying his home state of Kentucky, neighboring West Virginia, South Carolina, the three core states in the West (Utah, Idaho and Wyoming) and Alaska. And Hillary would easily win the rest. Now, what is missing on this map would be color differentiations to show narrow margins vs. wide margins. Since a Democrat wins NY by +25 to +29 in a two man race, in a three man race, the margin could shoot up to as high as +40. And with the GOP vote split in a state like North Dakota, Hillary could win by +3 to +5.

On the NPV level, it could be something like:

Clinton: 49%
Paul: 33%
Huckabee: 17%
other: 1%

Margin: Clinton +16

(In 1956, when Eisenhower won with +15, he won 41 out of 48 states. In 1988, when Bush 41 won by almost +8, he won 40 out of 50 states)

Now, this is just an exercise in possibilities. I am not saying that this is going to happen at all.

But what I am saying is that were the GOP to lose it's fundamental Christian base, it would stand absolutely no chance on the national level of winning the Presidency, period. One only has to look at 1912 or 1992 to see what unbelievably lopsided results a 3-man race with this kind of dynamic can bring with it. We have also seen, in 1948 and 1968, a Southern third party candidate (Strom Thurmond, George Wallace) win 4-5 states in the South, and with the South being the home of the Bible Belt, it only stands to reason that a Christian Party candidate, with his base in the South, could definitely win some states - it's simple numbers, folks. But this would also pretty much kill the GOP in the rest of the country, for even in states like Missouri, where the DEMS may only get 42% of the vote, that is enough to easily win against a GOP split into two parties.


Food for thought.

You post a very basic topic in a lot of text.

The Bible teaches "Free Will". The Constitution is law that stands for "Free Will" on most topics including religion. At one point in time someone Religious used Government and law to ban gay marriage.

The only reason this current political point escalated today is because the Bible states, "There will be many gays" in the end of times." So a significant amount of 2014 people are STILL voting against gay marriage because they are scared to death about the end of times even when the Bible says, "DO NOT JUDGE OR BE JUDGED".

So will the world end because of gays or the ones that judged them?
 
Libertarians don't care about gay marriage.

Have a party, invite your friends, say some vows and Bang!, you're married.

nobody.jpg
 
The US political system effectively makes it impossible for what needs to happen, to happen.

Both major US parties need to split into at least two factions for them to have any coherent policies. Ideally the GOP would split into a Conservative and a Tea Party/Religious party. Ideally the Dems would also split into a Centrist and a Social Democrat/Greens party.

So to answer your question - yes, Huckabee should leave, and should form a new party. But he won't and can't.
 
The US political system effectively makes it impossible for what needs to happen, to happen.

Both major US parties need to split into at least two factions for them to have any coherent policies. Ideally the GOP would split into a Conservative and a Tea Party/Religious party. Ideally the Dems would also split into a Centrist and a Social Democrat/Greens party.

So to answer your question - yes, Huckabee should leave, and should form a new party. But he won't and can't.
That sounds like a great idea. If you're drunk.
 
Rabbi -

Genuine multi-party democracy is a good idea. It works right across the developed world.

The lack of it does hold the US back, because voters have less choices, and parties lack focused, coherent platforms.
 
Rabbi -

Genuine multi-party democracy is a good idea. It works right across the developed world.

The lack of it does hold the US back, because voters have less choices, and parties lack focused, coherent platforms.
No, it actually doesnt work well at all. The result of elections are usually jockeying around so the smallest party ends up with the same influence as the biggest.
Here the jockeyng takes place before the election, in the primaries etc. By the time of the election there is unity.
 
It works fine, Rabbi.

There are occasions where a small party has held the balance of power (giving them choice over which major party forms a government), but those are rare. In most cases it is clear to voters who will work with whom, and they vote accordingly. This also voters to influence the actual makeup of a government in a way that is unthinkable in a two party system. This patently does not occur in primaries, because the losing candidates drop out.

What unity has there been in the GOP the past few years?

Can you honestly imagine the German CDP, Israels' Likud or Swedens Social Democrats going through a Tea Party-like revolution?

They would split and form new parties and give voters the choice. That's how a multi-party system works, and that is how it is better than a two-party system.
 
Mike Huckabee, former Republican presidential candidate from 2008 who lost in the primaries to John McCain, and likely with his eyes on the prize again in 2016, recently said that he might bolt from the GOP over gay marriage, should the GOP "cave" on the issue.

This got me to thinking.....what would happen were the Evangelical / Fundamentalistic Christians to bolt from the GOP and form their own party?

First, let's take a look at some maps.

Here is the region that is considered the "Bible Belt" of our Union:

BibleBelt.png


Source:

Bible Belt - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Let's overlay that with a map, by county:


Religion-in-America-map.gif



Now, that information is somewhat out of date, but I bet that the county sketch is pretty much the same today. The red in that map represents the Baptists, the majority of which, at least in the South, are Southern Baptists.

Now, let's take a look at Evangelicals as a larger group:

View attachment 33372


In this map, we see three states where Evangelicals account for more than 50% of those states' populations: Tennessee, Arkansas and Oklahoma. Interesting that those three are right on the old Mason-Dixon Line. Five states in relatively close proximity to those three states have Evangelical Christians as being between 41%-50% of their respective populations: Mississippi, Alabama, South Carolina, North Carolina and Kentucky.

Statistically, this can very well mean that those 8 states could be states with enough advantage in the general population for a third party (Christian Party) candidate to actually win some of those states in a National Presidential Election.

So, let's say that in 2016, the GOP bursts apart, the Fundamentalistic Christians (Evangelicals, Southern Baptists) bolt from the Republican Party and form their own political party: The American Christian Party, with Mike Huckabee as their nominee. And let's say, for good measure, that the Democrats nominate Hillary Clinton and the GOP nominates Rand Paul.

With the GOP split, it goes without saying that the core DEM states on the East Coast and the West Coast are easily massive landslide victories for Clinton, with the GOP vote split. It also would mean massive landslide for her in the usual crew of battleground suspects: Ohio, Virginia, Florida, to a lesser degree, Iowa.

Were the GOP to split, then a massive landslide for the Democrats would be the logical result and could result in a map something like this:

View attachment 33373

In this scenario map above, where you see the word "undecided", that would be Huckabee, and I could see him taking the three states where Evangelicals are more than 51% of the state's population, plus at least one more state, in this case, Alabama. I could see Rand Paul carrying his home state of Kentucky, neighboring West Virginia, South Carolina, the three core states in the West (Utah, Idaho and Wyoming) and Alaska. And Hillary would easily win the rest. Now, what is missing on this map would be color differentiations to show narrow margins vs. wide margins. Since a Democrat wins NY by +25 to +29 in a two man race, in a three man race, the margin could shoot up to as high as +40. And with the GOP vote split in a state like North Dakota, Hillary could win by +3 to +5.

On the NPV level, it could be something like:

Clinton: 49%
Paul: 33%
Huckabee: 17%
other: 1%

Margin: Clinton +16

(In 1956, when Eisenhower won with +15, he won 41 out of 48 states. In 1988, when Bush 41 won by almost +8, he won 40 out of 50 states)

Now, this is just an exercise in possibilities. I am not saying that this is going to happen at all.

But what I am saying is that were the GOP to lose it's fundamental Christian base, it would stand absolutely no chance on the national level of winning the Presidency, period. One only has to look at 1912 or 1992 to see what unbelievably lopsided results a 3-man race with this kind of dynamic can bring with it. We have also seen, in 1948 and 1968, a Southern third party candidate (Strom Thurmond, George Wallace) win 4-5 states in the South, and with the South being the home of the Bible Belt, it only stands to reason that a Christian Party candidate, with his base in the South, could definitely win some states - it's simple numbers, folks. But this would also pretty much kill the GOP in the rest of the country, for even in states like Missouri, where the DEMS may only get 42% of the vote, that is enough to easily win against a GOP split into two parties.


Food for thought.

You post a very basic topic in a lot of text.

The Bible teaches "Free Will". The Constitution is law that stands for "Free Will" on most topics including religion. At one point in time someone Religious used Government and law to ban gay marriage.

The only reason this current political point escalated today is because the Bible states, "There will be many gays" in the end of times." So a significant amount of 2014 people are STILL voting against gay marriage because they are scared to death about the end of times even when the Bible says, "DO NOT JUDGE OR BE JUDGED".

So will the world end because of gays or the ones that judged them?


Care to point me to that quote, by book and verse?

I believe you are referring to "in those days, they will be lovers of men".
 
God God, that's a lot of chaff to wade through only to find out Statistikhengst has Hillary wet dreams.

Not to mention it's a scenario that will never happen.

I made sure to write in the OP that I was not saying that this was going to happen. It's simply a what-if scenario. Oh, look, those words are even in the title!
 
The US political system effectively makes it impossible for what needs to happen, to happen.

Both major US parties need to split into at least two factions for them to have any coherent policies. Ideally the GOP would split into a Conservative and a Tea Party/Religious party. Ideally the Dems would also split into a Centrist and a Social Democrat/Greens party.

So to answer your question - yes, Huckabee should leave, and should form a new party. But he won't and can't.


It wasn't a question aimed at members. It was a "what if" provided as a possible scenario. But I agree with you that in the future, the Democratic Party could split, too. With the growth of the Greens across the world, I see this as very possible in the future. Indeed.
 
It works fine, Rabbi.

There are occasions where a small party has held the balance of power (giving them choice over which major party forms a government), but those are rare. In most cases it is clear to voters who will work with whom, and they vote accordingly. This also voters to influence the actual makeup of a government in a way that is unthinkable in a two party system. This patently does not occur in primaries, because the losing candidates drop out.

What unity has there been in the GOP the past few years?

Can you honestly imagine the German CDP, Israels' Likud or Swedens Social Democrats going through a Tea Party-like revolution?

They would split and form new parties and give voters the choice. That's how a multi-party system works, and that is how it is better than a two-party system.


In some ways, yes. But too much splitter party movement can cause even more gridlock than we have suffered through in the last 4 years.
 

Forum List

Back
Top