Would the Tea Party Run a 3rd-Party Candidate if Romney Wins?

Toro

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2005
Messages
82,963
Reaction score
20,413
Points
2,180
Location
Surfing the Oceans of Liquidity
I hadn't thought about that until I read it this afternoon.

Stan Greenberg, one of the top Democratic polltakers, says that while the Republican survivor in a tough race may be a better candidate, there are danger signs for the party.

“An ideological split is polarizing,” Greenberg says. “It can drive the base or independents away.”
‘Third Party’

This is a backroom Republican concern. Some supporters of Texas Governor Rick Perry already complain about the broadsides against their candidate in the two months since he entered the race. And John Feehery, a Republican political consultant, worries that if, as many think likely, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney gets the nomination “the anti-Romney forces within the Tea Party will start a rebellion and run a third party.”
Republican Purity Test May Be Obama

I'd be interested in the Tea Party members' opinions about this.
 

elvis

Rookie
Joined
Sep 15, 2008
Messages
25,881
Reaction score
4,464
Points
0
Is the tea party smart enough not to do this? Essentially, the tea party would take votes away from Romney. David Axelrod has wet dreams about a Tea Party third party run.
 

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
101,146
Reaction score
35,562
Points
2,260
Location
Brooklyn, NY
I hadn't thought about that until I read it this afternoon.

Stan Greenberg, one of the top Democratic polltakers, says that while the Republican survivor in a tough race may be a better candidate, there are danger signs for the party.

“An ideological split is polarizing,” Greenberg says. “It can drive the base or independents away.”
‘Third Party’

This is a backroom Republican concern. Some supporters of Texas Governor Rick Perry already complain about the broadsides against their candidate in the two months since he entered the race. And John Feehery, a Republican political consultant, worries that if, as many think likely, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney gets the nomination “the anti-Romney forces within the Tea Party will start a rebellion and run a third party.”
Republican Purity Test May Be Obama

I'd be interested in the Tea Party members' opinions about this.
Two words, Toro...

Ross Perot.
 

bitterlyclingin

Silver Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2011
Messages
3,116
Reaction score
423
Points
98
(I've heard it said that most of the people on the Right feel such an overwhelming and compelling need to get Obama out of the WhiteHouse as soon as possible that they would subjugate their own philosophies for the common good, One and Done! Do it, get it over with, get him gone, pick up the pieces and start rebuilding. The Left will riot. What do they have to lose? Right now the Left is busy on Wall Street demanding that the less than fifty per cent who pay for the free stuff that the over fifty per cent currently receive get ready to give them more free stuff. Roseann Barr, from the far Left's fever swamps is saying that the left needs to start decapitating the bankers and the rich who won't let go of their wealth.)

"Actress, comedienne and now author Roseanne Barr shares her solution for dealing with the rich and how the banks could repay the money the U.S. government bailed them out with in 2008.

"Part of my platform is, of course, the guilty must be punished and that we no longer let our children see their guilty leaders getting away with murder. Because it teaches children, you know, that they don't have to have any morals as long as they have guns and are bullies and I don't think that's a good message," Barr told Russia Today (RT).

"I do say that I am in favor of the return of the guillotine and that is for the worst of the worst of the guilty."


Roseanne Barr: Behead Bankers, Rich Who Won't Give Up Wealth | RealClearPolitics
 

DontBeStupid

Look it up!
Joined
Jun 23, 2011
Messages
4,463
Reaction score
429
Points
48
Location
Los Angeles, CA
I hadn't thought about that until I read it this afternoon.

Stan Greenberg, one of the top Democratic polltakers, says that while the Republican survivor in a tough race may be a better candidate, there are danger signs for the party.

“An ideological split is polarizing,” Greenberg says. “It can drive the base or independents away.”
‘Third Party’

This is a backroom Republican concern. Some supporters of Texas Governor Rick Perry already complain about the broadsides against their candidate in the two months since he entered the race. And John Feehery, a Republican political consultant, worries that if, as many think likely, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney gets the nomination “the anti-Romney forces within the Tea Party will start a rebellion and run a third party.”
Republican Purity Test May Be Obama

I'd be interested in the Tea Party members' opinions about this.
I am certainly no TPer, but I would love to see them run their own candidate. Yes, it would ensure an Obama win, but that's a short term view. In the long term, it would be so much better for our country to have 3 national, viable political parties.
 

JoeB131

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2011
Messages
128,201
Reaction score
13,616
Points
2,220
Location
Chicago, Chicago, that Toddling Town
I hadn't thought about that until I read it this afternoon.

Stan Greenberg, one of the top Democratic polltakers, says that while the Republican survivor in a tough race may be a better candidate, there are danger signs for the party.

“An ideological split is polarizing,” Greenberg says. “It can drive the base or independents away.”
‘Third Party’

This is a backroom Republican concern. Some supporters of Texas Governor Rick Perry already complain about the broadsides against their candidate in the two months since he entered the race. And John Feehery, a Republican political consultant, worries that if, as many think likely, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney gets the nomination “the anti-Romney forces within the Tea Party will start a rebellion and run a third party.”
Republican Purity Test May Be Obama

I'd be interested in the Tea Party members' opinions about this.
Well, I'm not a Tea Partier, although I think they have some valid points.

Frankly, I can't see the TEA movement getting behind Romney. A primary motivator of this movement was their oppossition to ObamaCare. Romney came up with the "Beta Version" of it.

I think that there has always been this divide between the base- mostly working class (which I am), mostly religious (which I'm not) - and the establishment in Washington which preaches to this base but has kind of a secret disdain for them.

Nominating Romney would tick off a lot of this base- the Evangelicals, the Tea Party. Yet the Establishment is pretty much pulling out all the stops for this guy because... well, honestly I have no idea. He was a shit candidate in 2008, he's a worse one now.
 

Katzndogz

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2011
Messages
65,656
Reaction score
7,474
Points
1,830
The democrats have the tea party confused with the purist republicans. The tea party's interests are very narrow. It's fiscal. It is all about big government being too expensive. That's the only common thread.
 

JoeB131

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2011
Messages
128,201
Reaction score
13,616
Points
2,220
Location
Chicago, Chicago, that Toddling Town
Two words, Toro...

Ross Perot.
Only reason Ross Perot didn't win in 1992 was because he was batshit crazy.

Right now, both parties have approval rates in the 20's. that means that at least 50% of the electorate is saying, "A Pox on both your houses."

Honestly, I am amazed that we haven't seen a clamoring for a third party in this country. One not owned by big corporations.

Nominating the Weird Mormon Robot might be the thing that pushes it over the edge.
 

DontBeStupid

Look it up!
Joined
Jun 23, 2011
Messages
4,463
Reaction score
429
Points
48
Location
Los Angeles, CA
The democrats have the tea party confused with the purist republicans. The tea party's interests are very narrow. It's fiscal. It is all about big government being too expensive. That's the only common thread.
Is that why TPers talk on and on about "individual liberties" and "personal freedoms"?
 

JoeB131

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2011
Messages
128,201
Reaction score
13,616
Points
2,220
Location
Chicago, Chicago, that Toddling Town
Would the Tea Party Run a 3rd-Party Candidate if Romney Wins?
To paraphrase the punch line from the old joke: they may be crazy but they’re not stupid.

Two words, Toro...

Ross Perot.
Before that there was ‘Bull Moose.’
Progressive Party came very close to winning in 1912. The only reason it didn't do better was that Teddy Roosevelt was injured in an assassination attempt and his ability to campaign was limited.

But let's look at what preceded it. TR had picked Taft as his successor, but Taft proceeded to turn his back on all the pro-working folks things Teddy did. he was a tool for the monied interests. TR challenged him in the primaries, and won the few states that held them back in the day. Most states, however, still selected their delegates at state conventions, made up of party loyalists who held government jobs. In the South, for instance, most of the delegates went for Taft, even though Republicans hadn't carried those states since right after the Civil War.

So there is a paralel here. Romney is despised by large parts of the base, for pretty good reasons. But the establishment seems bent on torpedoing anyone who gets in that opposes him. And this will be the second election in a row where they've pulled that crap.
 

Dont Taz Me Bro

Diamond Member
Staff member
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2009
Messages
51,685
Reaction score
16,102
Points
2,290
Location
Las Vegas, Nevada
The democrats have the tea party confused with the purist republicans. The tea party's interests are very narrow. It's fiscal. It is all about big government being too expensive. That's the only common thread.
Is that why TPers talk on and on about "individual liberties" and "personal freedoms"?
Bigger government = less individual liberty and personal freedom
 

DontBeStupid

Look it up!
Joined
Jun 23, 2011
Messages
4,463
Reaction score
429
Points
48
Location
Los Angeles, CA
The democrats have the tea party confused with the purist republicans. The tea party's interests are very narrow. It's fiscal. It is all about big government being too expensive. That's the only common thread.
Is that why TPers talk on and on about "individual liberties" and "personal freedoms"?
Bigger government = less individual liberty and personal freedom
Yes, yes, I've seen the bumper stickers.
 

bitterlyclingin

Silver Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2011
Messages
3,116
Reaction score
423
Points
98
(If Barack Obama is not defeated November 6, 2012 there will be no America left to campaign for in 2016. Bernie Goldberg argues the premise of giving us "The most Conservative candidate whio can win" a la William F Buckley.)

"I was part of a panel a few days ago on politics, culture and the media. And the first question put to us was right to the point: “Can Barack Obama win re-election?”

Political guru Dick Morris, Tea Party unofficial leader Dick Armey, a scholar from the Heritage Foundation all said no. It’s tough to argue with that. President Obama’s approval ratings are not good and most Americans think we’re on the wrong track. He’s lost support from his key constituents, including Jewish voters and African-Americans. Worst of all for the president, independents who supported him in 2008 have jumped ship in big numbers.

Like the others, Dick Armey offered a smart analysis of why Obama is in big trouble. But unlike the others, he ended his analysis saying, quietly and almost as an afterthought, Obama won’t win, “Unless the Republicans nominate the wrong candidate.”

That’s like saying, “Besides that Mrs. Lincoln, how’d you enjoy the play?”"


Can Obama Win Re-Election? - BernardGoldberg.com

(Otherwise you're giving the country over to the likes of Frances Fox Piven, collapse the economy and rebuild it as a shining example of Communist principle. Karl Marx stressed equality, but modern Communist Governments operating systems tend markedly towards inequality, and Barack Obama is currently far to the Left of even Karl Marx.)

"FRANCES FOX PIVEN: “I teach at the Graduate School of the City University of New York. I am here because I am so enthusiastic about the possibilities of this sit-in, over the marches that are occurring over postal worker issues, the sister demonstrations that are starting in Chicago and Los Angeles, and maybe in Boston. I think we desperately need a popular uprising in the United States. None of us know. I study movements. None of us know the exact formula for when those movements erupt, but it could be. And if that is true, then these people who are here are really wonderful. I would do anything to help them.” (TV Show: “Democracy Now!”)"

Weasel Zippers » Blog Archive » Liberal Icon Frances Fox Piven: “We Desperately Need A Popular Uprising”…
 

JoeB131

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2011
Messages
128,201
Reaction score
13,616
Points
2,220
Location
Chicago, Chicago, that Toddling Town
(If Barack Obama is not defeated November 6, 2012 there will be no America left to campaign for in 2016. Bernie Goldberg argues the premise of giving us "The most Conservative candidate whio can win" a la William F Buckley.)

"I was part of a panel a few days ago on politics, culture and the media. And the first question put to us was right to the point: “Can Barack Obama win re-election?”

Political guru Dick Morris, Tea Party unofficial leader Dick Armey, a scholar from the Heritage Foundation all said no. It’s tough to argue with that. President Obama’s approval ratings are not good and most Americans think we’re on the wrong track. He’s lost support from his key constituents, including Jewish voters and African-Americans. Worst of all for the president, independents who supported him in 2008 have jumped ship in big numbers.

Like the others, Dick Armey offered a smart analysis of why Obama is in big trouble. But unlike the others, he ended his analysis saying, quietly and almost as an afterthought, Obama won’t win, “Unless the Republicans nominate the wrong candidate.”

That’s like saying, “Besides that Mrs. Lincoln, how’d you enjoy the play?”"


]
Leaving all the silly "Obama is a closet Marxist" nonsense aside. (Seriously, Marxists don't bail out big corporations.)

But here's the thing, who is the "right" candidate?

Every last one of the GOP candidates has pretty severe flaws.

Also, incumbants are tough to beat generally.

I personally think Romney is unelectable. He ticks off too many key groups the GOP will need to win- Tea Partiers, Evangelicals, Hispanics, Women. I know I would never vote for him.

Perry I support, but I'm having doubts about. He's letting himself get beaten to snot by the MSM and GOP establishment, the latter of which would rather lose an election than have a candidate they don't approve of.

Chris Christie, maybe. But he's got to get moving. And he probably needs to lose some weight.

I don't think anyone else they have is even remotely electable.

So the sad commentary about the GOP today is that faced with the worst president since Herbert Hoover, they are unable to beat him due to their inability to find a candidate that even they like.
 
OP
Toro

Toro

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2005
Messages
82,963
Reaction score
20,413
Points
2,180
Location
Surfing the Oceans of Liquidity
(If Barack Obama is not defeated November 6, 2012 there will be no America left to campaign for in 2016. Bernie Goldberg argues the premise of giving us "The most Conservative candidate whio can win" a la William F Buckley.)

"I was part of a panel a few days ago on politics, culture and the media. And the first question put to us was right to the point: “Can Barack Obama win re-election?”

Political guru Dick Morris, Tea Party unofficial leader Dick Armey, a scholar from the Heritage Foundation all said no. It’s tough to argue with that. President Obama’s approval ratings are not good and most Americans think we’re on the wrong track. He’s lost support from his key constituents, including Jewish voters and African-Americans. Worst of all for the president, independents who supported him in 2008 have jumped ship in big numbers.

Like the others, Dick Armey offered a smart analysis of why Obama is in big trouble. But unlike the others, he ended his analysis saying, quietly and almost as an afterthought, Obama won’t win, “Unless the Republicans nominate the wrong candidate.”

That’s like saying, “Besides that Mrs. Lincoln, how’d you enjoy the play?”"


]
Leaving all the silly "Obama is a closet Marxist" nonsense aside. (Seriously, Marxists don't bail out big corporations.)

But here's the thing, who is the "right" candidate?

Every last one of the GOP candidates has pretty severe flaws.

Also, incumbants are tough to beat generally.

I personally think Romney is unelectable. He ticks off too many key groups the GOP will need to win- Tea Partiers, Evangelicals, Hispanics, Women. I know I would never vote for him.

Perry I support, but I'm having doubts about. He's letting himself get beaten to snot by the MSM and GOP establishment, the latter of which would rather lose an election than have a candidate they don't approve of.

Chris Christie, maybe. But he's got to get moving. And he probably needs to lose some weight.

I don't think anyone else they have is even remotely electable.

So the sad commentary about the GOP today is that faced with the worst president since Herbert Hoover, they are unable to beat him due to their inability to find a candidate that even they like.
I'm not so sure that these novices or also-rans - i.e. Cain, Bachmann, Santorum - couldn't beat Obama.

After all, pretend its 2006 again. Would it seem feasible that a black, inexperienced northern liberal with a funny name and a link to Islam have a realistic shot of becoming President? Yet, it happened. People were so pissed off at the Republicans that this is who they chose as President.

So, yeah, a Mormon can become President. But so can a Herman Cain or a Rick Santorum or a Michelle Bachmann. People are hurting so much right now that they might be willing to try something - anything - to change Washington, like they did in 2008. The candidate has to have poise, be intelligent and look the part - which Obama did in 2008 and Perry definitely is not now (though there is still time to change it). If Obama could get elected, so could a Mormon or a pizza king with no political experience or a slightly off kilter evangelical or a ... a ... a whatever Rick Santorum is.

I think this race is wide open and Obama is in serious trouble. It baffles me that more people don't see this, especially those potential Republican candidates who would have a semi-legitimate shot at winning the nomination.
 
Last edited:

Sallow

The Big Bad Wolf.
Joined
Oct 4, 2010
Messages
56,532
Reaction score
6,241
Points
1,840
Location
New York City
I hadn't thought about that until I read it this afternoon.

Stan Greenberg, one of the top Democratic polltakers, says that while the Republican survivor in a tough race may be a better candidate, there are danger signs for the party.

“An ideological split is polarizing,” Greenberg says. “It can drive the base or independents away.”
‘Third Party’

This is a backroom Republican concern. Some supporters of Texas Governor Rick Perry already complain about the broadsides against their candidate in the two months since he entered the race. And John Feehery, a Republican political consultant, worries that if, as many think likely, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney gets the nomination “the anti-Romney forces within the Tea Party will start a rebellion and run a third party.”
Republican Purity Test May Be Obama

I'd be interested in the Tea Party members' opinions about this.
Well, I'm not a Tea Partier, although I think they have some valid points.

Frankly, I can't see the TEA movement getting behind Romney. A primary motivator of this movement was their oppossition to ObamaCare. Romney came up with the "Beta Version" of it.

I think that there has always been this divide between the base- mostly working class (which I am), mostly religious (which I'm not) - and the establishment in Washington which preaches to this base but has kind of a secret disdain for them.

Nominating Romney would tick off a lot of this base- the Evangelicals, the Tea Party. Yet the Establishment is pretty much pulling out all the stops for this guy because... well, honestly I have no idea. He was a shit candidate in 2008, he's a worse one now.
Because out of the field that is currently available..Romney is the most "electable". And while he's been getting better at debating..he's not going to be a very good candidate.
 

Paulie

Diamond Member
Joined
May 19, 2007
Messages
40,411
Reaction score
5,960
Points
1,830
I hadn't thought about that until I read it this afternoon.

Stan Greenberg, one of the top Democratic polltakers, says that while the Republican survivor in a tough race may be a better candidate, there are danger signs for the party.

“An ideological split is polarizing,” Greenberg says. “It can drive the base or independents away.”
‘Third Party’

This is a backroom Republican concern. Some supporters of Texas Governor Rick Perry already complain about the broadsides against their candidate in the two months since he entered the race. And John Feehery, a Republican political consultant, worries that if, as many think likely, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney gets the nomination “the anti-Romney forces within the Tea Party will start a rebellion and run a third party.”
Republican Purity Test May Be Obama

I'd be interested in the Tea Party members' opinions about this.
You mistake the tea party for being a real independent grassroots movement, when in reality it's been under the establishment's thumb for a while now.

Don't expect anything interesting out of them. They'll be voting for the nominee like good little sheep.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top