Last Line of Defense? 4 or 5 Republican Senators Switch to Independent-They then hold all the cards

Vanity | 1/6/15 | self

[Be Careful]

Thoughts?

[Buckeye McFrog]

Only if they under any circumstances might be willing to vote with the Democrats. It’s a stretch.

[jjsheridan5]

True, but if the premise is that 5 conservative Rs switch to Ind will cause the Senate GOPe leadership to be more conservative ...

Except, that isn't the premise. At this point, who cares what the Republicans do. They are a broken party, completely divorced from the voters who put them there, and a co-conspirator in trying to fundamentally change this country. This isn't about trying to change the hearts and minds of GOP leadership. It is about providing the ~86% of Republican voters who oppose the current liberal leadership, an alternative. UKIP is the model, and USIP is the goal. Anything else is just spinning the wheels.

As long as we look at the Republican party as something salvageable, we have lost. As soon as we look beyond the Republican party, we have begun the journey towards providing a meaningful opposition to liberalism.

[jjsheridan5]

Independents hold NO cards. They lose all their seniority in the party, all their committee spots, they get nobody to caucus with. It’s a good way to end a career but it doesn’t actually accomplish much.

And that is why UKIP is so meaningless, and can't accomplish anything. These same kinds of things were said about UKIP, and they were about as wrong as they could be, just as they are wrong now. What happened was that UKIP tapped into the same frustration that exists here, in even greater supply, and rather than being a fringe 3rd party, has emerged as the dominant one. Far from holding no cards, or ending their career, or accomplishing nothing (all the usual predictions), they are actually in the process of saving their country, and are crushing the old order, an order that is very similar to our own.

[kosciusko51]

So, in your opinion, would 5 conservative senators switching from R to I be helpful or detrimental to the conservative cause?

[discostu]

Completely different system in the UK. The British parliament is designed to have many parties and lots of alliances between them forming blocks, it’s a system where a party with a few members can mean something. Our system is designed for 2 parties, there’s the majority, the minority, and anybody else that shows up can bugger off. We’ve had plenty of folks go independent here, and most of them never won another election.

[jjsheridan5]

So, in your opinion, would 5 conservative senators switching from R to I be helpful or detrimental to the conservative cause?

If it were just that, it would have no appreciable effect, one way or the other. If, on the other hand, it came as part of a large effort to create a party that stands in opposition to liberalism, then the answer is different. The truth is, we don't know. We know that there is a sizable block of voters out there who currently have no representation, and that they are generally very politically active people. We also know that the support for current Republican party is waning, to say the least. But there are far too many unknowns. A 3rd party would start out fairly ineffective, and we would have to undergo several election cycles in the wilderness, so to speak, before we saw any positive effect (barring a presidential victory). So I have no idea, and nor can anyone else. But what we do know is that continuing on the path we have been going is a complete, utter failure, and that conservatism is already in the wilderness, and will remain there anyway.

Basically, there is no real downside (the country is already slipping away anyway, and conservatives are powerless to stop it), and there is an enormous amount to gain.

[kosciusko51]

A 3rd party would start out fairly ineffective, and we would have to undergo several election cycles in the wilderness, so to speak, before we saw any positive effect (barring a presidential victory).

I don't think the US survives several more elections cycles in the course we are presently headed. A third party is not the answer; a divorce is necessary.

[harpu]

Thoughts?!?

Hmmm..."Very interesting but stupid"

[jjsheridan5]

Yes, I know the system is different. But what isn't different is this: the prediction was that UKIP would pull only a handful of support out of the conservatives, to the benefit of the liberals, and would never gain enough traction among the voters to have any effect. That prediction was 100% wrong. It failed to take into account the level of disconnect between both parties, and their voters, and woefully underestimated the potential number of votes out there that were attainable. And it is that prediction which is also untrue, when applied to the US.

A successful build of a 3rd party would take a number of election cycles, during which conservatism would have the same impact it has now (zero), due to the nature of the American system. But at the end of it, there is a realistic potential of emerging as either the majority or the minority party. At the end of our current approach, however, there is the absolute certainty that our country will be much further to the left than it is now, and conservatism will be as relevant here as it is in N. Korea.

[GeronL]

UKIP could easily become the largest or second largest party in the Parliament in the next national election, I heard.

[jjsheridan5]

A third party is not the answer; a divorce is necessary

What do you mean, "divorce"? Either way, there are no short term fixes. Trying to forge a shortcut where there is none never works. If we can't survive several more election cycles, then the country is gone, because conservatives have no method to stop liberalism, now that liberalism is the operating ideology of both parties. A third party may or may not work. What separates it from other strategies is that we don't know that it won't work. (Personally, I believe that a 3rd party would grow like wildfire, and we wouldn't have to wait several election cycles; however, one doesn't need to believe this to conclude that it is the only viable strategy).

[discostu]

Which has no bearing on this. I didn’t say 5 GOPers going independent would pull support away from anybody or benefit anybody. I said it would be a hollow gesture that had no effect other than to end their careers.

Building a 3rd party here would have nothing to do with somebody going independent. To do it they need to be national but not aim federal until they’ve got good numbers. Win a lot of legislature seats, mayorals, governorships. Stuff where the structure isn’t rigged, or is at least small enough to de-rig. Then, when they have enough of a following that they could actually win 10 to 20% of congressional seats (enough so that even though they’d be a minority they could seriously gum up the works, so they’d have to start being included) aim for the fed.

Of course as it sits right now all the 3rd parties take joy in losing. They think of themselves as noble Quixotes, so they aim for all kinds of stuff they can’t win and remain proud of their purity. None of them will ever succeed because they don’t want to.

[jjsheridan5]

I think we are talking apples and oranges. I agree that 5 GOPers going independent (if that was all there was), would have no effect. I disagree slightly, in that I don't think it would be a career killer in some cases (Cruz, for example, would cruise to re-election easily), but that is neither here nor there.

I also agree that most 3rd party ventures are selfish and meaningless gestures, designed to elevate one's sense of value. A serious 3rd party venture would entail picking off a lot of low hanging fruit in local and statewide positions, and also "borrowing" a lot of the grass-roots manpower that makes up the infrastructure of the Republican party. It would also take time.

Either way, I think that I agree with what you are saying.

[JSDude1]

Not going to happen, if you want a third party (which doesn’t completely screw conservatism) you need to lobby for “electoral fusion” in your state, so that candidates can be nominated by more than 1 political party on a ballot.

If this is successful, then it would be possible for a 3rd Conservative Political Party to hold the balance of power, until then: It’s not going to happen.

[JewishRighter]

I don’t see the advantage. What would this gang of 5 do? Threaten to vote,with the dems?

[Be Careful]

Thanks for your thoughtful reply.....I am so surprised that no one took my angle with this post......by switching to I, 4 Conservatives would put McConnell with a 50-50 split in the Senate, with Biden as tie-breaker. It seems to me that this group of 4 would then have very much leverage with McConnell.

[jjsheridan5]

If this group of independents were yet another group of pigs trying to get an extra share out of the public trough, then they would indeed hold more leverage. However, everyone would know that they are principled, and therefore predictable. They couldn’t credibly offer/withhold support in the same way that an unprincipled cretin could, especially given that they would be surrounded by the twin pillars of liberalism (the D and R parties), which would be proffering legislation that, by and large, would be wholly unacceptable to anyone with either principles or common sense.

Basically, I don’t think that they would be kingmakers, but rather doormats. The good news is that they wouldn’t lose any influence. The bad news is that it is because they don’t have any to lose.

[CAluvdubya]

My representative, Tom McClintock, CA who gives speeches about his conservative values voted for Boehner. I let him know what I thought about his vote.

I was so surprised that Tom voted for the CRomnibus AND for Boehner. Really disappointed in him. Never thought I'd see the day that McClintock went all SDC on us...

[CAluvdubya]

oops... NOT SDC. should be , “I never thought I’d see the day that McClintock went all DC on us”

[x]

I am so surprised that no one took my angle with this post......by switching to I, 4 Conservatives would put McConnell with a 50-50 split in the Senate, with Biden as tie-breaker. It seems to me that this group of 4 would then have very much leverage with McConnell.

Or McConnell writes them off and picks a few Democrats he can work with.

You can't make a major break from a party and assume the party system and party loyalties will work in the same way as before.