[tlb]

Reading the thread and many like it before, I’ve concluded it doesn’t matter. It’s not 1992, and there is no Ross Perot on the horizon with the perceived national credibility and cash to mount a serious third party.

Let the cranks go. It’s too much bother to retain them for too little payback.

[calcowgirl]

Let the cranks go. It’s too much bother to retain them for too little payback.

Conservatives who won't vote for a pro-abortion, pro-gun control, pro-santuary city illegal alien enabler, who ruled NYC by encroaching on freedoms, appointed 80% democrat judges, surrounded himself with numerous corrupt cronies who were prosecuted and removed from office, borrowed his way through 2 terms, and left the state with larger deficits than when he took office despite the largest economic boom in recent history, are cranks?

Here's a thought: Voting for a liberal will get you a liberal! No thanks!

[jonathanmo]

The third party talk is interesting...it looks like the Constitution Party is the one in question. It has the ballot access necessary, but will conservatives line up behind Michael Peroutka? If not, who would switch parties to run?

[SoConPubbie]

Stupid!

A Republican candidate cannot afford to lose even 1% in todays elections (See GWB lest you forget!).

If Rudy really wasn’t just about Rudy; If he was actually about some type of principle (which he ain’t) he would drop out and let a real Republican gain some momentum before the General Election. But he won’t and he won’t win the primary either.

[dforest]

Let the cranks go. It’s too much bother to retain them for too little payback.

Bonzer idea, let the conservatives go...now go find some centrists and RATs to switch over to the other dark side.

If y'all don't need us then find those you do need and quit trying to push BS at those who know exactly what it is.