Posted on 05/09/2011 2:46:41 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Imagine what the numbers will be after the inevitable GOP cave on the debt ceiling.
This is the first time Gallup finds a significantly higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats in favor of a third party. During much of President Bush’s term, the opposite was true, with Democrats more likely to favor the formation of a third party. That gap narrowed in 2007, after the Democrats’ victories in the 2006 midterms, and there has been a minimal difference between the two parties until the current poll.
The increase in Republican support for a third party since 2008 could be an outgrowth of the Tea Party movement, which is closely aligned with the GOP. The poll, which also assessed Americans’ orientation toward the movement, finds 60% of those who identify themselves as Tea Party supporters in favor of a third party, compared with 44% of Tea Party opponents. The opinions of those who say they are neither supporters nor opponents fall in between those of the two groups.
The partisan trend lines are dramatic, especially the GOP’s, but curiously — and despite heavy tea party support for a third party — there’s no corresponding split in ideology. Liberals, moderates, and conservatives are all at either 51 or 52 percent, and support for a third party has declined among all three groups since last year. What gives?
My assumption is that partisan support for a third party should spike when a party is out of power and has nothing to lose by splitting (or flirting with splitting) over ideology. That’s what you’re seeing, I think, in the Democratic trend line from 2003 to 2006: Anti-war liberals were frustrated that their leadership hadn’t done more to check Bush and to convince the public that progressivism is the truth, the light, and the way, so they fantasized about going rogue. Once Democrats took back Congress, they put that aside and focused on influencing the new congressional majority. And indeed, you see a dip from 2006 to 2008, when Pelosi took over and everyone rallied behind their party’s nominee in a presidential election year. Conversely, partisan support for a third party should crater when a party is in power and looking to hold together to preserve its legislative majority — or so I would have guessed. But neither the Democratic nor the Republican trend line follows that prediction. From 2008 to 2010, despite total control of government, Democrats’ support for a third party rose seven points. Republican support for a third party also rose by seven points when they had total control of government from 2003 to 2006; my hunch is that’s because conservatives rallied around Bush after 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq, which artificially depressed third-party support at the beginning of the decade. But check out the numbers from 2010 to 2011, after the great tea party tidal wave: An increase of five points, notwithstanding the fact that Boehner and company now have de facto veto power over the Democratic agenda.
The takeaway here, I assume, is that neither party’s base trusts its leadership much anymore. Republicans are probably irritated at the slow pace of spending cuts after the big GOP victory, especially after Boehner had to come down from his $100 billion pledge in reaching a deal with Obama and Reid. Democrats, meanwhile, were disappointed in Obama’s first two years in office, maybe because of the economy’s sluggishness (the stimulus wasn’t big enough!), maybe because he’s basically been Bush 44 on most counterterrorism matters, or maybe because ObamaCare isn’t quite the single-payer socialist system (yet) that they’ve dreamed about. Granted, their support for a third party cratered after the GOP’s victory in November, but I take it that’s less because of newfound satisfaction with O than from abject terror that the country’s turned against their agenda and therefore they can’t afford to dilute their strength at a precarious moment. And yet, and yet, I can’t reconcile any of that with the stasis in the numbers by ideology. Shouldn’t conservative support for a third party be leaping from disappointment with the House on budgetary matters? In fact, it’s actually dropped slightly since last year. Any theories?
This is a surprise to nobody but the RNC leadership.
If a third party splits the vote, Obama will get a second term. But I guess that’s okay.
Better yet, force the RINOs to form their own third party.
That's a sign that the present republican field is not good enough. With a good candidate the GOP will win no matter who the third party candidate is.
3rd and even fourth parties will migrate to the EXACT same positions on issues.
Better to have a pure Liberal in the WH then an impure Conservative.
We need to get down on our knees and thank God that Obama beat that bastard McCain.
Let’s wait to panic till a candidate is whittled out of this huge field. I think that the GOP has a vacuum of leadership right now and that everyone is just off in all directions. Having a single decent candidate will consolidate a lot of these 3rd part folks.
It could be called the slower train to Hell
It’s a hypothetical and meaningless.
It’s like asking, “Do you favor dogs not having fleas?”
Perot gave us Clinton but Bush gave us Perot. The Stupid Party still hasn’t heard the free trade job sucking sound.
If they cannot do what we sent them to D.C. to accomplish, putting off the tough decisions until after 2012 will do them no good as they will have no chance to get re-elected as conservatives will form a third party to finally get our agenda accomplished.
Yes, Obama and liberals will have more time in office due to this, as it cannot succeed overnight, but enough of the “vote for the lesser of two evils” BS.
Vote for a dem, you get marxism via the fast track.
Vote for a republican, you get marxism via the slow track, as they are determined to stay in office and will not alienate the parasites who want their handouts.
Vote for a third party and eventually that third party will replace republicans and this country can begin the long journey back to prosperity.
It won't happen overnight, but it MUST be done if the republicans refuse to do what is necessary, and they have so far done nothing of consequence other than signal that they refuse to do anything that my put their re-election chances in jeopardy.
We need more Teapublicans to run in the primaries.
Thank the RINO leadership.
That's what this whole article is about - sabotage encouragement from Rats/RINOs for Tea Partiers to form their own party or go to the libertarian party, and thereby split the Right and ensure a Rat win.
This is the problem - you've got Bohner up there, and he NEVER publicly reminds the demons that he HAS got the veto power. HE turns it around and says, aw, well, we're only one house, and the rats have got the Senate and the WH. Well, the Republicans have got the numbers in the Senate to prevent any chance of breaking a filibuster, so it would seem they've enough power between them to kick up a ruckus, but they are not doing it, at least not so anyone would notice.
Geez. I hope that is sarcasm. Other wise I will have to find a new forum to chat on. Maybe the Ron Paul zombies have something. I am sure it would be affiliated with "High Times" magazine somehow.
A 3rd party presidential candidate has to have a base of elected 3rd party Congressmen and Senators.
Otherwise he will have to buy votes from two parties.
Nope! Our Republican Rulers go back to D.C. and work with the Democrat Rulers to pass more laws and taxes to further their power over us. That's what the voters are fed up with. Our rulers use our tax money to buy votes. That's all they do now, buy votes. We have no leadership!
Where does the Teas stand on 'fleece' trade?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.