More than 100 Republicans, including former governors and lawmakers, are threatening to form a third

Well keep on wishing.

 

Well that tears it then. The GOP is over, to be replaced by this new Neo-Con party, all 149 of them.

 

Not replacing, because the new party is an addition, not a replacement. GOP will remain as the populist party, and they can keep the neo-cons too. I'm sure they feel more at home with the populists in GOP than conservatives in the new party.

 

Uh, it's the neo cons that jumped ship. I don't know where you got the idea that the neo cons are "at home with the populists." You really don't understand what's going on in the Republican party, nor do you understand who the never Trumpers actually are.

 

How is that contradictory or "conflicted" at all? Populism is a victim narrative that "the people" are losing the class war against "the elite" and require a savior (said savior is typically part of the elite themselves, but manages to dupe the gullible into thinking they stand for "the everyman"). Populism isn't actually all that popular in American politics. You mostly find it among actual socialists and protectionist/anti-capitalist conservatives like Trump. Until Trump, it didn't have much of a presence at all within the GOP, aside from Pat Buchanan.

 

I guess I'm not an 'all or nothing' kind of person. I look for nuances and trends. And while you don't think this means anything - that it will have zero effect - Trump appears to feel differently. Is it going to replace the Republican party? No. Will it be a contender? No. But it is demonstrating the desire and need for an alternative. And, perhaps, it will carve out a chunk from the existing Republican party...which could be a wee bit of a problem. We all know what independents do to voting outcomes - imagine two republican parties in the future fighting against one Democrat party.

 

I guess that makes him an idiot then. Only an idiot would waste time and energy on others who mean nothing to him.

 

Sorry, but I simply think the concern trolling about 149 neo cons is way overblown. The Constitution Party, with over 100,000 members, is more of a danger to razor thin electoral margins than the New Neo Con party will ever be.

These Never Trumpers aren't a threat in votes, however they do command a lot of the media space with the MSM. They are the most common type of "republican" to appear on news shows and on background in print media. So they are very noisy, but that doesn't effect their actual influence with actual Republican voters (near zero).

 

Its simple. Conservative and libertarians leave, and others stay, which means neo-cons, and populists stay. Where did you get the idea that neo cons are forming new party?

 

Would you agree or disagree that a strong conservative party would be a desirable thing and why?

 

Good for them, for standing up for their principles, but it doesn't sound like much of a threat; between your post & the linked article, I don't know how many times I saw that phrase, "former governors & lawmakers"-- translation: has-beens, and a few Representatives that the GOP well would have, ultimately, expelled, anyway.The interesting thing will be seeing if those currently in Congress, still vote alongside their former party-mates.

My hunch is that, despite any tensions between the the two poles of the Democratic camp, we will see exceedingly few (if any) abandon the Party that is now surging in popularity, in control of both halves of Congress, plus the Executive branch, to join a new, tiny, minority party.

It will make the House mid-terms interesting, though, seeing Trump's GOP fight those more traditional Republicans for their seats. Still, if Trump's party could win a Senate majority, that's all that would matter. I would not think that likely, except for all the changes being made in voter laws.

 

I have not seen the list of names, but my impression is that you are doing too much stereotyping of what is bound to be a very individual decision, based on your mental categorizations of Congressional Republicans. For example, who's more Libertarian than Rand Paul, and yet I would be very surprised to hear that he was among the secessionist Repubs.

 

Congress reps serve 2 year terms, so if a 3rd party candidate beats them, then that seat transfers to the 3rd party. The founding members are conservative (former) governors and lawmakers. The GOP seems to be purging conservatives and replacing them with populists, and not everyone is happy to see that. I think the support would be there.

94 members in the Dem party belong to a group with views that are "socially liberal and fiscally conservative", and it they think the new party will be large enough to get bills through, then why would they stay with Dems?

Rand Paul is conservative with libertarian views (I voted for his father several times), and I would expect him to switch parties if a new party was created which is more in line with conservative/libertarian views. I do not believe he is happy with the direction the GOP is going.

 

Maybe, maybe not. No Independent stands a chance, but a new centrist party just might.

 

I'm not really going to depend on you to determine who is and isn't a conservative. The fact is, the never trumpers are primarily (although not totally) the neo cons. I suspect you don't really know what a neo con is, so you don't even understand what I'm talking about.

 

Given that you are not a conservative, and based on your posts are in opposition to anything conservative, I don't get where you are going with that question.

 

Did someone ask you to?

A fact according to who?

Do you have to be "never trumper" to want to create a conservative party? I get it that you are married to the Republican party, and that is fine. No one is twisting your arm to leave. Based on your posting history a populist party is exactly where you belong. Letting conservatives leave won't hurt you or anyone.

 

Sigh, this is pointless since you are clueless on who the Never Trumpers actually are. Meanwhile I've followed this group since 2015 and am well familiar with who makes up this group.

But you are correct that letting the neo cons leave won't hurt me. The GOP will be much better off with out them. Enjoy your new allies.

 

No one cars who they are. I am talking about conservatives, moderates and libertarians wanting to form a new party, and for whatever reason you want to talk about something else. Why not open another thread about your concerns?

You dont read well. As I said before, they can stay with the party you are married to, - the current Republican populist/neo-con party. No one suggested they are going anywhere.

 

If you think the neo con wing is the one that's staying, then again, you just don't understand anything about the issue.

 

I think the recent Covid relief package, as well as the infrastructure bill are proof that, despite their differences, the fiscally conservative Dems still have more in common with the liberals, than they do with the Republicans, NONE of whom voted for the stimulus & other measures which all the Dems saw as essential; the handful of Repubs who were even willing to negotiate over it, wanted to cut it to the bone. The same with infrastructure. I'll say again, it seems to me that your argument is based on preconceived, theoretical ideas, not on the living facts.

Whether or not they are happy with it is, first of all, a rather speculative guess, on your part. But it's also not their central, determinant question, which is about what course: 1) keeps them in office and, 2) gives them power. In both these things, most-- including, as I already said, Rand Paul-- are likely to see the current Party to be a more secure place than some splinter Party (remember, most would also lose their committee assignments, in a minority party). I guess we will soon see which of us is right, since a Republican Party rejection of Trump would not appear to be in the cards.

Just to be clear, my predictions are NOT based on what I would like to see happen. I would welcome a non-Trumpist, Republican alternative. But pragmatically speaking, I don't think it's a risk most will be willing to take, if they are afraid to even speak out about this, "unhappiness," you say they have with their Party's direction. Why should it be safer for them to speak their minds, in a new party, if they will still be competing for the same voters?

All that said, I am not calling your vision an impossibility, only an unlikelihood. For it to happen, I see as depending on the voters. If these initial break-away Republicans get strong support, it could encourage some of the more timid-spirited to join them. But there is the real chance, also, that splitting the Republican vote could provide more opportunities for Democrats. Sadly, though, the biggest obstacle to the success of this retro-Republican Party is that the voters have already largely rejected it, and turned the Party into the Trumpmania it is, today.

 

Little Mike's standard "argument": You know nothing, you know nothing, you know nothing......

Conservatives, moderates and libertarians want to ditch the Republican party and for whatever reason that offends you to no end.

Its ok, you stay with the populists and neo-cons while others move on. Good luck and all.

 

<MOD EDIT>

Its not speculation. They are flat out saying they are not happy with the direction of the GOP, which is the very reason they are doing this. Do you think they are lying, and saying it for some other reason?

Some conservatives like Liz Cheney are losing them in the current party. Besides, who says the new party would be the minority?

It's not about what they want. Congress reps are always up for re-election, and its possible they are beat out and replaced by a conservative challenger.[/quote][/QUOTE]

 

Could you fix your post, while we're still in the editing window, so we won't have to use the moderators? This paragraph I quoted, above, is from MY post to you. All you need to do is cut & paste the bracketed info from the paragraph below it, to the beginning of this quote.

 

You are contradicting yourself. It is a MINORITY of currently serving Republican Congressman who have signed on to this letter. Therefore, INITIALLY, it will be a minority party. I am not talking about the future, which no one can predict, for sure. But if there existed the bravery, within the Republican ranks, to strike out on their own before knowing where the chips would fall, and they are so unhappy with the current Republican Party's direction, it begs the question, why more did not sign on to this demand letter.

We were specifically talking about Rand Paul, because you had said that you would expect Libertarians to part ways with the established Party, to go to this new start-up. First, I have not heard of Senator Paul criticizing the GOP's direction. This has come from only a small minority. So why would you expect those who have been silent, to now walk out? Secondly, you keep talking about your rosy predictions--

-- but it is a given, that a new party will not IMMEDIATELY be in the majority; so, in answer to your earlier question, COMMON SENSE says the new party would be in the minority, to start. I believe this initial condition is what most will be focused upon (their immediate fortunes). If a majority of Republicans are committed to long-term, idealist goals, it has certainly not been apparent in their legislative efforts.