Conservative 3rd Party in 2012 - Gingrich Warns

[American Horse]

Gingrich points out that the Republicans, and the Republican Administration of President Bush are also to blame for the huge increase in Federal spending, while he attacked President Barack Obama’s “monstrosity of a budget"

“If the Republicans can’t break out of being the right wing party of big government, then I think you would see a third party movement in 2012, Gingrich said during an address to students at the College of the Ozarks in Missouri.

“Remember, everything Obama’s doing, Bush started last year,” he said.

“If you’re going to talk about big spending, the mistakes of the Bush administration last year are fully as bad as the mistakes of Obama’s first two, three months.”

In an article today, in NewsMax.com, Gingrich predicted that “fed up” Americans will instigate a “nationwide rebellion at the polls,” and said the increased government spending under Obama is “literally irrational.”

It seems that Newt believes that the Republican Party doesn't have a chance to recover before 2012 in its current fashion, and the current mood of revolt against these policies (all of them) will need a home other than in the Republican or Democrat Party.

It is in times of huge unresolved issues that new parties are born. The last successful new party was the Republican Party which replaced the Whig Party in 1854. Those Issues were about slavery and it's extension into the new states, as well as modernization.

The question might be, are the present unresolved issues of sufficient attention grabbing consequence as they were in 1854, and if they are won't a figure (like Lincoln) be needed to project that party to prominence?

Who would that person be? Will we be given any clue who that person may be by forthcoming character assassinations and hatchet jobs by the existing powers that be? If that were the case, then Newt has already suffered those attempts, and might be one of the most viable candidates, with some strong lieutenant; someone who will emerge in the interim. Those candidates will be given hatchet jobs by the MSM, Etal too, beginning now.

Here's Newt on the Financial Bail-Out back during the election, a long time ago but, except for the reference to McCain, it's as pertinent today as then. Remember though, here he's referring to the Bush Administration, not the Obama Adminstration.

 

[elvis]

Gingrich points out that the Republicans, and the Republican Administration of President Bush are also to blame for the huge increase in Federal spending, while he attacked President Barack Obama’s “monstrosity of a budget"

“If the Republicans can’t break out of being the right wing party of big government, then I think you would see a third party movement in 2012, Gingrich said during an address to students at the College of the Ozarks in Missouri.

“Remember, everything Obama’s doing, Bush started last year,” he said.

“If you’re going to talk about big spending, the mistakes of the Bush administration last year are fully as bad as the mistakes of Obama’s first two, three months.”

In an article today, in NewsMax.com, Gingrich predicted that “fed up” Americans will instigate a “nationwide rebellion at the polls,” and said the increased government spending under Obama is “literally irrational.”

It seems that Newt believes that the Republican Party doesn't have a chance to recover before 2012 in its current fashion, and the current mood of revolt against these policies (all of them) will need a home other than in the Republican or Democrat Party.

It is in times of huge unresolved issues that new parties are born. The last successful new party was the Republican Party which replaced the Whig Party in 1854. Those Issues were about slavery and it's extension into the new states, as well as modernization.

The question might be, are the present unresolved issues of sufficient attention grabbing consequence as they were in 1854, and if they are won't a figure (like Lincoln) be needed to project that party to prominence?

Who would that person be? Will we be given any clue who that person may be by forthcoming character assassinations and hatchet jobs by the existing powers that be? If that were the case, then Newt has already suffered those attempts, and might be one of the most viable candidates, with some strong lieutenant; someone who will emerge in the interim. Those candidates will be given hatchet jobs by the MSM, Etal too, beginning now.

Here's Newt on the Financial Bail-Out back during the election, a long time ago but, except for the reference to McCain, it's as pertinent today as then. Remember though, here he's referring to the Bush Administration, not the Obama Adminstration.

would only work if the third party took votes away from the democrats. I don't see that happening.

 

[mash107]

There are too many "conservatives" who don't firmly believe that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were a complete and total abject failure and waste of taxpayer money. In 2000, I was looking forward to a shrinking of government, less spending, less inflation and less taxes. We got none. The tax cuts were a joke, and since spending never decreased, it meant less job creation and more inflation. It's mere partisan hackery that's sunk us into bankruptcy, and while Obama has certainly pushed us off the cliff, the blame lies squarely on the decades of excessive spending and regulation by both R's and D's that has gotten us here.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Gingrich points out that the Republicans, and the Republican Administration of President Bush are also to blame for the huge increase in Federal spending, while he attacked President Barack Obama’s “monstrosity of a budget"

“If the Republicans can’t break out of being the right wing party of big government, then I think you would see a third party movement in 2012, Gingrich said during an address to students at the College of the Ozarks in Missouri.

“Remember, everything Obama’s doing, Bush started last year,” he said.

“If you’re going to talk about big spending, the mistakes of the Bush administration last year are fully as bad as the mistakes of Obama’s first two, three months.”

In an article today, in NewsMax.com, Gingrich predicted that “fed up” Americans will instigate a “nationwide rebellion at the polls,” and said the increased government spending under Obama is “literally irrational.”

It seems that Newt believes that the Republican Party doesn't have a chance to recover before 2012 in its current fashion, and the current mood of revolt against these policies (all of them) will need a home other than in the Republican or Democrat Party.

It is in times of huge unresolved issues that new parties are born. The last successful new party was the Republican Party which replaced the Whig Party in 1854. Those Issues were about slavery and it's extension into the new states, as well as modernization.

The question might be, are the present unresolved issues of sufficient attention grabbing consequence as they were in 1854, and if they are won't a figure (like Lincoln) be needed to project that party to prominence?

Who would that person be? Will we be given any clue who that person may be by forthcoming character assassinations and hatchet jobs by the existing powers that be? If that were the case, then Newt has already suffered those attempts, and might be one of the most viable candidates, with some strong lieutenant; someone who will emerge in the interim. Those candidates will be given hatchet jobs by the MSM, Etal too, beginning now.

Here's Newt on the Financial Bail-Out back during the election, a long time ago but, except for the reference to McCain, it's as pertinent today as then. Remember though, here he's referring to the Bush Administration, not the Obama Adminstration.

would only work if the third party took votes away from the democrats. I don't see that happening.

Simply NOT true. Over 40 percent of voters are not members of either party.

 

[elvis]

Gingrich points out that the Republicans, and the Republican Administration of President Bush are also to blame for the huge increase in Federal spending, while he attacked President Barack Obama’s “monstrosity of a budget"

“If the Republicans can’t break out of being the right wing party of big government, then I think you would see a third party movement in 2012, Gingrich said during an address to students at the College of the Ozarks in Missouri.

“Remember, everything Obama’s doing, Bush started last year,” he said.

“If you’re going to talk about big spending, the mistakes of the Bush administration last year are fully as bad as the mistakes of Obama’s first two, three months.”

In an article today, in NewsMax.com, Gingrich predicted that “fed up” Americans will instigate a “nationwide rebellion at the polls,” and said the increased government spending under Obama is “literally irrational.”

It seems that Newt believes that the Republican Party doesn't have a chance to recover before 2012 in its current fashion, and the current mood of revolt against these policies (all of them) will need a home other than in the Republican or Democrat Party.

It is in times of huge unresolved issues that new parties are born. The last successful new party was the Republican Party which replaced the Whig Party in 1854. Those Issues were about slavery and it's extension into the new states, as well as modernization.

The question might be, are the present unresolved issues of sufficient attention grabbing consequence as they were in 1854, and if they are won't a figure (like Lincoln) be needed to project that party to prominence?

Who would that person be? Will we be given any clue who that person may be by forthcoming character assassinations and hatchet jobs by the existing powers that be? If that were the case, then Newt has already suffered those attempts, and might be one of the most viable candidates, with some strong lieutenant; someone who will emerge in the interim. Those candidates will be given hatchet jobs by the MSM, Etal too, beginning now.

Here's Newt on the Financial Bail-Out back during the election, a long time ago but, except for the reference to McCain, it's as pertinent today as then. Remember though, here he's referring to the Bush Administration, not the Obama Adminstration.

would only work if the third party took votes away from the democrats. I don't see that happening.

Simply NOT true. Over 40 percent of voters are not members of either party.

That may be true, but I don't see a third party candidate having a chance any time soon.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

would only work if the third party took votes away from the democrats. I don't see that happening.

Simply NOT true. Over 40 percent of voters are not members of either party.

That may be true, but I don't see a third party candidate having a chance any time soon.

The claim is NOT that a new party will win in 2012, just that a new one will become viable. Took the Republican party I believe the 3rd National election to win. Might have been the second.

 

[elvis]

Simply NOT true. Over 40 percent of voters are not members of either party.

That may be true, but I don't see a third party candidate having a chance any time soon.

The claim is NOT that a new party will win in 2012, just that a new one will become viable. Took the Republican party I believe the 3rd National election to win. Might have been the second.

when they say viable, do they mean like Ross Perot viable?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

That may be true, but I don't see a third party candidate having a chance any time soon.

The claim is NOT that a new party will win in 2012, just that a new one will become viable. Took the Republican party I believe the 3rd National election to win. Might have been the second.

when they say viable, do they mean like Ross Perot viable?

Viable would mean that it does not fold and vanish after one election. That it continues to grow and become stronger. That it does not let the Press decide it should blow away cause it did not win it's first election.

 

[elvis]

The claim is NOT that a new party will win in 2012, just that a new one will become viable. Took the Republican party I believe the 3rd National election to win. Might have been the second.

when they say viable, do they mean like Ross Perot viable?

Viable would mean that it does not fold and vanish after one election. That it continues to grow and become stronger. That it does not let the Press decide it should blow away cause it did not win it's first election.

to be viable, the candidate has to be allowed at the debate like Perot was.

 

[WorldAHope]

There are enough moderate and conservative GOP members sick of what has happened to split and form new parties/party.
I think it would be good, as far as representation. But for 2012, it would ensure an Obama re-election.
The GOP is totally screwed up right now. Moderates are excluded, and have to go to Independent or to even being Democrats.
We will probably see a third party form, maybe soon after the GOP has a disastrous 2010.
It would will make the USA like Israel or Britain or Canada - multiparty legislatures.
Which means Dems will be more organized and better financed, and will rule for at least a few more elections.
Is that good ? From my view as a New Yorker, where Dems have tight control, I don't like one
party rule. Without real honest competition, corruption and personal greed become the ruler.
Not good.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

Gingrich points out that the Republicans, and the Republican Administration of President Bush are also to blame for the huge increase in Federal spending, while he attacked President Barack Obama’s “monstrosity of a budget"

“If the Republicans can’t break out of being the right wing party of big government, then I think you would see a third party movement in 2012, Gingrich said during an address to students at the College of the Ozarks in Missouri.

“Remember, everything Obama’s doing, Bush started last year,” he said.

“If you’re going to talk about big spending, the mistakes of the Bush administration last year are fully as bad as the mistakes of Obama’s first two, three months.”

In an article today, in NewsMax.com, Gingrich predicted that “fed up” Americans will instigate a “nationwide rebellion at the polls,” and said the increased government spending under Obama is “literally irrational.”

It seems that Newt believes that the Republican Party doesn't have a chance to recover before 2012 in its current fashion, and the current mood of revolt against these policies (all of them) will need a home other than in the Republican or Democrat Party.

It is in times of huge unresolved issues that new parties are born. The last successful new party was the Republican Party which replaced the Whig Party in 1854. Those Issues were about slavery and it's extension into the new states, as well as modernization.

The question might be, are the present unresolved issues of sufficient attention grabbing consequence as they were in 1854, and if they are won't a figure (like Lincoln) be needed to project that party to prominence?

Who would that person be? Will we be given any clue who that person may be by forthcoming character assassinations and hatchet jobs by the existing powers that be? If that were the case, then Newt has already suffered those attempts, and might be one of the most viable candidates, with some strong lieutenant; someone who will emerge in the interim. Those candidates will be given hatchet jobs by the MSM, Etal too, beginning now.

Here's Newt on the Financial Bail-Out back during the election, a long time ago but, except for the reference to McCain, it's as pertinent today as then. Remember though, here he's referring to the Bush Administration, not the Obama Adminstration.

would only work if the third party took votes away from the democrats. I don't see that happening.

Simply NOT true. Over 40 percent of voters are not members of either party.

Actually that number is more like 20 percent. But hey its your story. You tell it.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

when they say viable, do they mean like Ross Perot viable?

Viable would mean that it does not fold and vanish after one election. That it continues to grow and become stronger. That it does not let the Press decide it should blow away cause it did not win it's first election.

to be viable, the candidate has to be allowed at the debate like Perot was.

A third party can't get in the debates without polling at 15% nationwide, and they can't get 15% nationwide without getting in the debates. That's how the Commission on Presidential Debates likes it, being members of either the Democratic or Republican parties. I don't think that any third party is going to do any better in 2012 than they did in 2008.

 

[elvis]

Viable would mean that it does not fold and vanish after one election. That it continues to grow and become stronger. That it does not let the Press decide it should blow away cause it did not win it's first election.

to be viable, the candidate has to be allowed at the debate like Perot was.

A third party can't get in the debates without polling at 15% nationwide, and they can't get 15% nationwide without getting in the debates. That's how the Commission on Presidential Debates likes it, being members of either the Democratic or Republican parties. I don't think that any third party is going to do any better in 2012 than they did in 2008.

I agree with the second part, but how did Perot get in? was he allowed into the debates, and therefore got the 17 percent, or the other way around?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

to be viable, the candidate has to be allowed at the debate like Perot was.

A third party can't get in the debates without polling at 15% nationwide, and they can't get 15% nationwide without getting in the debates. That's how the Commission on Presidential Debates likes it, being members of either the Democratic or Republican parties. I don't think that any third party is going to do any better in 2012 than they did in 2008.

I agree with the second part, but how did Perot get in? was he allowed into the debates, and therefore got the 17 percent, or the other way around?

He had the personal finances to get his name out there. Third parties today don't have anywhere near those kind of resources.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

would only work if the third party took votes away from the democrats. I don't see that happening.

Simply NOT true. Over 40 percent of voters are not members of either party.

Actually that number is more like 20 percent. But hey its your story. You tell it.

Ya cause 30 percent republican and 35 percent dem leaves 20 right? And most of the new dems will drop most likely.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

Simply NOT true. Over 40 percent of voters are not members of either party.

Actually that number is more like 20 percent. But hey its your story. You tell it.

Ya cause 30 percent republican and 35 percent dem leaves 20 right? And most of the new dems will drop most likely.

Yeah, see I base my statements on fact, not figements of imagination.

Those who registered for neither major political party recorded the greatest increase in
registration (2.4 percentage points). Their increase was substantially greater in battleground
states (2.9 percentage points) than in non-battleground states (2.0 percentage points). The level
of non-major party affiliated registrants has reached 21.9 percent in the states which have
reported, marking the 11th straight election of increase, from a level of 1.6 percent of the eligible
electorate in 1960.

http://www1.american.edu/ia/cdem/csae/pdfs/csae041028.pdf

 

[WorldAHope]

Thanks for sticking to facts, but that report is from 2004.
A lot has changed since.
State of the States: Political Party Affiliation
Party Affiliation
US Political Parties - 2008 Election - ProCon.org
This is a graphic representation of how counties performed relative to Kerry:
State 2004 2008 Swing Swing Relative to Average

USA R+3 D+7 D+10 0

AL R+26 R+22 D+4 -6
AK R+25 R+22 D+6 -4 (Palin HS)
AZ R+11 R+9 D+2 -8 (McCain HS)
AR R+9 R+20 R+11 -21 (Clinton HS*)
CA D+9 D+24 D+15 +5
CO R+5 D+8 D+13 +3
CT D+10 D+23 D+13 +3
DE D+7 D+23 D+16 +6 (Biden HS)
FL R+5 D+2 D+7 -3
GA R+17 R+5 D+12 +2
HI D+9 D+45 D+36 +26 (Obama HS*)
ID R+39 R+25 D+14 +4
IL D+11 D+25 D+14 +4 (Obama HS)
IN R+21 D+1 D+22 +12
IA R+1 D+9 D+10 0
KS R+25 R+16 D+9 -1
KY R+19 R+17 D+2 -8
LA R+15 R+19 R+4 -14
ME D+9 D+17 D+8 -2
MD D+7 D+23 D+16 +6
MA D+25 D+26 D+1 -9 (Kerry HS)
MI D+3 D+16 D+13 +8
MN D+3 D+10 D+7 -3
MS R+20 R+14 D+6 -4
MO R+7 R+1 D+6 -4
MT R+20 R+3 D+17 +7
NE R+33 R+17 D+16 +6
NV R+3 D+12 D+15 +5
NH D+1 D+9 D+8 -2
NJ D+8 D+15 D+7 -3
NM R+1 D+15 D+16 +6
NY D+19 D+25 D+6 -4 (Clinton HS)
NC R+12 D+1 D+12 +3 (Edwards HS)
ND R+27 R+8 D+19 +9
OH R+2 D+4 D+6 -4
OK R+32 R+32 None -10
OR D+4 D+16 D+12 +2
PA D+2 D+10 D+8 -2
RI D+22 D+28 D+6 -4
SC R+17 R+9 D+8 -2
SD R+21 R+8 D+13 +3
TN R+14 R+15 R+1 -11
TX R+23 R+10 D+13 +3 (Bush HS)
UT R+46 R+29 D+17 +7
VT D+20 D+35 D+15 +5
VA R+8 D+6 D+14 +4
WA D+7 D+17 D+10 0
WV R+13 R+13 None -10
WI D+1 D+13 D+12 +2
WY R+40 R+32 D+8 -2 (Cheney HS)

 

[CrimsonWhite]

Thanks for sticking to facts, but that report is from 2004.
A lot has changed since.
State of the States: Political Party Affiliation
Party Affiliation
US Political Parties - 2008 Election - ProCon.org
This is a graphic representation of how counties performed relative to Kerry:
State 2004 2008 Swing Swing Relative to Average

USA R+3 D+7 D+10 0

AL R+26 R+22 D+4 -6
AK R+25 R+22 D+6 -4 (Palin HS)
AZ R+11 R+9 D+2 -8 (McCain HS)
AR R+9 R+20 R+11 -21 (Clinton HS*)
CA D+9 D+24 D+15 +5
CO R+5 D+8 D+13 +3
CT D+10 D+23 D+13 +3
DE D+7 D+23 D+16 +6 (Biden HS)
FL R+5 D+2 D+7 -3
GA R+17 R+5 D+12 +2
HI D+9 D+45 D+36 +26 (Obama HS*)
ID R+39 R+25 D+14 +4
IL D+11 D+25 D+14 +4 (Obama HS)
IN R+21 D+1 D+22 +12
IA R+1 D+9 D+10 0
KS R+25 R+16 D+9 -1
KY R+19 R+17 D+2 -8
LA R+15 R+19 R+4 -14
ME D+9 D+17 D+8 -2
MD D+7 D+23 D+16 +6
MA D+25 D+26 D+1 -9 (Kerry HS)
MI D+3 D+16 D+13 +8
MN D+3 D+10 D+7 -3
MS R+20 R+14 D+6 -4
MO R+7 R+1 D+6 -4
MT R+20 R+3 D+17 +7
NE R+33 R+17 D+16 +6
NV R+3 D+12 D+15 +5
NH D+1 D+9 D+8 -2
NJ D+8 D+15 D+7 -3
NM R+1 D+15 D+16 +6
NY D+19 D+25 D+6 -4 (Clinton HS)
NC R+12 D+1 D+12 +3 (Edwards HS)
ND R+27 R+8 D+19 +9
OH R+2 D+4 D+6 -4
OK R+32 R+32 None -10
OR D+4 D+16 D+12 +2
PA D+2 D+10 D+8 -2
RI D+22 D+28 D+6 -4
SC R+17 R+9 D+8 -2
SD R+21 R+8 D+13 +3
TN R+14 R+15 R+1 -11
TX R+23 R+10 D+13 +3 (Bush HS)
UT R+46 R+29 D+17 +7
VT D+20 D+35 D+15 +5
VA R+8 D+6 D+14 +4
WA D+7 D+17 D+10 0
WV R+13 R+13 None -10
WI D+1 D+13 D+12 +2
WY R+40 R+32 D+8 -2 (Cheney HS)

Your graphic doesn't represent a 20% increase in non major party affiliate voters.

 

[WorldAHope]

Thanks for sticking to facts, but that report is from 2004.
A lot has changed since.
State of the States: Political Party Affiliation
Party Affiliation
US Political Parties - 2008 Election - ProCon.org
This is a graphic representation of how counties performed relative to Kerry:
State 2004 2008 Swing Swing Relative to Average

USA R+3 D+7 D+10 0

AL R+26 R+22 D+4 -6
AK R+25 R+22 D+6 -4 (Palin HS)
AZ R+11 R+9 D+2 -8 (McCain HS)
AR R+9 R+20 R+11 -21 (Clinton HS*)
CA D+9 D+24 D+15 +5
CO R+5 D+8 D+13 +3
CT D+10 D+23 D+13 +3
DE D+7 D+23 D+16 +6 (Biden HS)
FL R+5 D+2 D+7 -3
GA R+17 R+5 D+12 +2
HI D+9 D+45 D+36 +26 (Obama HS*)
ID R+39 R+25 D+14 +4
IL D+11 D+25 D+14 +4 (Obama HS)
IN R+21 D+1 D+22 +12
IA R+1 D+9 D+10 0
KS R+25 R+16 D+9 -1
KY R+19 R+17 D+2 -8
LA R+15 R+19 R+4 -14
ME D+9 D+17 D+8 -2
MD D+7 D+23 D+16 +6
MA D+25 D+26 D+1 -9 (Kerry HS)
MI D+3 D+16 D+13 +8
MN D+3 D+10 D+7 -3
MS R+20 R+14 D+6 -4
MO R+7 R+1 D+6 -4
MT R+20 R+3 D+17 +7
NE R+33 R+17 D+16 +6
NV R+3 D+12 D+15 +5
NH D+1 D+9 D+8 -2
NJ D+8 D+15 D+7 -3
NM R+1 D+15 D+16 +6
NY D+19 D+25 D+6 -4 (Clinton HS)
NC R+12 D+1 D+12 +3 (Edwards HS)
ND R+27 R+8 D+19 +9
OH R+2 D+4 D+6 -4
OK R+32 R+32 None -10
OR D+4 D+16 D+12 +2
PA D+2 D+10 D+8 -2
RI D+22 D+28 D+6 -4
SC R+17 R+9 D+8 -2
SD R+21 R+8 D+13 +3
TN R+14 R+15 R+1 -11
TX R+23 R+10 D+13 +3 (Bush HS)
UT R+46 R+29 D+17 +7
VT D+20 D+35 D+15 +5
VA R+8 D+6 D+14 +4
WA D+7 D+17 D+10 0
WV R+13 R+13 None -10
WI D+1 D+13 D+12 +2
WY R+40 R+32 D+8 -2 (Cheney HS)

Your graphic doesn't represent a 20% increase in non major party affiliate voters.

the Interactive Graphic did not copy over from NYT article. DOH !!
Its a cool graph, shows how the voting in EACH COUNTY in the US has changed from the 2004 to 2008 elections. Not registration, voting. Registration is almost as dramatic a swing towards Democrats and Indies, but I do not have that handy.
The settings on this NYT graph go up to 14. That's 4 better that other graphs. .

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packag...swf?scp=8&sq=elections demographic map&st=cse

 

[WorldAHope]

Thanks for sticking to facts, but that report is from 2004.
A lot has changed since.
State of the States: Political Party Affiliation
Party Affiliation
US Political Parties - 2008 Election - ProCon.org
This is a graphic representation of how counties performed relative to Kerry:
State 2004 2008 Swing Swing Relative to Average

USA R+3 D+7 D+10 0

AL R+26 R+22 D+4 -6
AK R+25 R+22 D+6 -4 (Palin HS)
AZ R+11 R+9 D+2 -8 (McCain HS)
AR R+9 R+20 R+11 -21 (Clinton HS*)
CA D+9 D+24 D+15 +5
CO R+5 D+8 D+13 +3
CT D+10 D+23 D+13 +3
DE D+7 D+23 D+16 +6 (Biden HS)
FL R+5 D+2 D+7 -3
GA R+17 R+5 D+12 +2
HI D+9 D+45 D+36 +26 (Obama HS*)
ID R+39 R+25 D+14 +4
IL D+11 D+25 D+14 +4 (Obama HS)
IN R+21 D+1 D+22 +12
IA R+1 D+9 D+10 0
KS R+25 R+16 D+9 -1
KY R+19 R+17 D+2 -8
LA R+15 R+19 R+4 -14
ME D+9 D+17 D+8 -2
MD D+7 D+23 D+16 +6
MA D+25 D+26 D+1 -9 (Kerry HS)
MI D+3 D+16 D+13 +8
MN D+3 D+10 D+7 -3
MS R+20 R+14 D+6 -4
MO R+7 R+1 D+6 -4
MT R+20 R+3 D+17 +7
NE R+33 R+17 D+16 +6
NV R+3 D+12 D+15 +5
NH D+1 D+9 D+8 -2
NJ D+8 D+15 D+7 -3
NM R+1 D+15 D+16 +6
NY D+19 D+25 D+6 -4 (Clinton HS)
NC R+12 D+1 D+12 +3 (Edwards HS)
ND R+27 R+8 D+19 +9
OH R+2 D+4 D+6 -4
OK R+32 R+32 None -10
OR D+4 D+16 D+12 +2
PA D+2 D+10 D+8 -2
RI D+22 D+28 D+6 -4
SC R+17 R+9 D+8 -2
SD R+21 R+8 D+13 +3
TN R+14 R+15 R+1 -11
TX R+23 R+10 D+13 +3 (Bush HS)
UT R+46 R+29 D+17 +7
VT D+20 D+35 D+15 +5
VA R+8 D+6 D+14 +4
WA D+7 D+17 D+10 0
WV R+13 R+13 None -10
WI D+1 D+13 D+12 +2
WY R+40 R+32 D+8 -2 (Cheney HS)

Your graphic doesn't represent a 20% increase in non major party affiliate voters.

Independent, non-affiliated voters make up a big portion of the electorate.
In 2008 those voters split their votes for President, had no real 3rd party choice. Only a very small % of total electorate voted for other than Rep or Dem.
(hope this graph copies over okay....).

I'm wishing for a decent 3rd option - or in the event of a GOP collapse, a better 2nd option. It will have a positive, moderating impact upon American politics. We've had too much one party rule and 2 party bickerring.
We need more adult supervision in government.

United States presidential election, 2008 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Grand total

Popular vote totals are from the official final state tallies as detailed in the state-by-state "Popular vote" table below. The electoral vote totals were certified by Congress on January 8, 2009.[117]
Presidential candidate Party Home state Popular vote Electoral
vote Running mate Running mate's
home state Running mate's
electoral vote
Count Pct
Barack Obama Democratic Illinois 69,456,897 52.92% 365 Joe Biden Delaware 365
John McCain Republican Arizona 59,934,814 45.66% 173 Sarah Palin Alaska 173
Ralph Nader Independent Connecticut 738,475 0.56% 0 Matt Gonzalez California 0
Bob Barr Libertarian Georgia 523,686 0.40% 0 Wayne Allyn Root Nevada 0
Chuck Baldwin Constitution Florida 199,314 0.15% 0 Darrell Castle Tennessee 0
Cynthia McKinney Green California 161,603 0.12% 0 Rosa Clemente North Carolina 0
Other 226,908 0.17% – Other –
Total 131,257,328 100% 538 538
Needed to win 270 270