# Possible 3rd Party Forming on the Right? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 24, 2009, 5:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possible-3rd-party-forming-on-the-right/514942 "2009-10-24T05:57:32Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 10\ **Page:** 14
**Author:** ![DoctorJ](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/doctorj/32/2904_2.png) [@DoctorJ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DoctorJ)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2009, 12:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possible-3rd-party-forming-on-the-right/514942/261 "2009-11-04T12:03:31Z")
So looking at this thread in light of Tuesday’s results: –Hoffman, the Teabaggers’ Teabagger, lost NY-23, giving the seat to a Democrat for the first time in ages. –The Republican who won his close Gov. race, Chris Christie in NJ, is consistently described as a moderate. –Same-sex marriage was voted down in Maine, showing that the traditional “values” Republicans are still as relevant as ever. (I don’t know where Virginia fits in. Mid-south gubernatorial races are always wildcards, and the story there seems to be that the Democrats just didn’t turn anybody out.) I think it’s silly to extrapolate national trends from this handful of oddball elections, but you certainly can’t spin it in favor of a new Libertarian or Teabagger resurgence. There’s been a lot of talk in the last few weeks about the Teabaggers pushing out GOP moderates in 2010, and the NY-23 race might have given them some momentum to do that if Hoffman had won, but he didn’t. The motto at Daily Kos, almost since its inception, has been “more and better Democrats”. But it’s hard to get both at the same time, as seen by the fact that we can’t get a ridiculously compromised health care bill passed with a 60-seat Senate majority. Maybe the Republicans are right to go for “better” before “more”, but it’s going to be an either/or proposition. ---
**Author:** ![Fuzzy\_Dunlop](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/848f3c/32.png) [@Fuzzy\_Dunlop](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fuzzy_Dunlop)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2009, 1:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possible-3rd-party-forming-on-the-right/514942/262 "2009-11-04T13:52:29Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > [ABC News: Vast Economic Discontent Spells Trouble for Dems in 2010](http://abcnews.go.com/PollingUnit/Politics/election-2009-virginia-jersey-exit-polls-obama-economy/story?id=8984551) > > Translation: People like Obama personally, but they hate the direction the Democrats are taking the country. They’re just not holding it against Obama. This is an absolutely insane ‘translation’. The economy was the number 1 issue on people’s minds a year ago when we decided to elect Obama. McCain was never likely to win but his horrid handling of the financial meltdown in September and the impending recession at large was the nail in the coffin for him. Even his own top aids have since admitted that the day he declared that the economy was fundamentally sound was pretty much the end of things for him. I’m about as big an Obama supporter as one can be without blindly supporting everything he says, and the economy is my number one concern too. It was my number one concern when I voted for Obama too. I’m so glad that as much as Obama and the Democratic congress are far from perfect, at least the country has realized the Republicans are terrible news for the economy. People were extremely worried about the faltering economy. People voted for Obama because they trusted him to improve the economy. A year later, we’re still worried about the economy. Polls show we approve of Obama. Therefore, people hate Obama’s plan for economic recovery? Really really astoundingly bad analysis. Just awful. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2009, 2:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possible-3rd-party-forming-on-the-right/514942/263 "2009-11-04T14:16:00Z")
Odd take at RedState: [In NY-23, Conservatives Win](http://www.redstate.com/erick/2009/11/04/in-ny-23-conservatives-win/) > [@](#): > > First, the GOP now must recognize it will either lose without conservatives or will win with conservatives. In 2008, many conservatives sat home instead of voting for John McCain. Now, in NY-23, conservatives rallied and destroyed the Republican candidate the establishment chose. > … > Secondly, and just as importantly, there has all of a sudden been a huge movement among some activists to go the third party route. We see in NY-23 that this is not possible as third parties are not viable. So it’s now time to clean the conservative essence of the GOP. Somehow I think they’d have reached that same conclusion even if Hoffman had won. ---
**Author:** ![Fuzzy\_Dunlop](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/848f3c/32.png) [@Fuzzy\_Dunlop](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fuzzy_Dunlop)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2009, 2:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possible-3rd-party-forming-on-the-right/514942/264 "2009-11-04T14:26:34Z")
> [@Squink](#): > > Odd take at RedState: > > [In NY-23, Conservatives Win](http://www.redstate.com/erick/2009/11/04/in-ny-23-conservatives-win/) So it’s now time to clean the conservative essence of the GOP. Somehow I think they’d have reached that same conclusion even if Hoffman had won. If you take this election on face value it seems a more accurate introduction would have been “First, the GOP now must recognize it can either lose without conservatives or lose with conservatives.” You’re right that they’d have reached the same conclusion either way, but you have to give them credit where it’s due. The right wing extremists did defeat Scozzafava and losing the election doesn’t take away from that. ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2009, 2:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possible-3rd-party-forming-on-the-right/514942/265 "2009-11-04T14:30:15Z")
The conservative victory was in destroying the moderate Repub candidate, and in succeeding to get the Republican national leadership to basically repudiate her. The actual election was secondary – more or less a casualty of war. IMO, this entirely eliminates Sam’s opinion in his OP, and entirely validates mine in my first post in this thread. The conservatives have no interest at all in forming a third party – their interest is in eliminating the moderates within the Republican party. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2009, 2:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possible-3rd-party-forming-on-the-right/514942/266 "2009-11-04T14:53:15Z")
> [@Milossarian](#): > > To those going with the “B-b-but Bush” argument, [here’s](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2009/03/21/GR2009032100104.html) some possible evidence as to why the exasperation some had with Bush’s spending is coming to a head this year under Obama. Obama has exponentially multiplied the trend these people find troublesome. > > [Here’s](http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/24/bush-deficit-vs-obama-deficit-in-pictures/) some further context on the above. That’s context? Fuck that shit. Here’s the context for your first picture: 1. It shows Bush deficits totaling maybe $2 trillion. 2. However, between 9/30/01 and 9/30/08, seven years that were all Bush, the national debt went from $5.8 trillion to $10 trillion. 3. I’ve heard it said in various places that Bush moved a lot of his spending off budget, and used other accounting gimmicks to keep his deficit numbers down. I don’t know the truth or falsity of that, but it’s hard to see how else $2 trillion worth of annual deficits could have added $4.2 trillion to the national debt. 4. Then there’s the FY09 budget, which was basically Bush’s budget plus the portion of the Obama stimulus spending (maybe 40% of $800B, or about $0.3 trillion) that fell into FY09. (Half of it is supposed to fall in FY10.) So $1.5 trillion of the FY09 deficit is Bush’s. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2009, 2:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possible-3rd-party-forming-on-the-right/514942/267 "2009-11-04T14:54:36Z")
> [@Boyo Jim](#): > > The conservative victory was in destroying the moderate Repub candidate, and in succeeding to get the Republican national leadership to basically repudiate her. The actual election was secondary – more or less a casualty of war. > > IMO, this entirely eliminates Sam’s opinion in his OP, and entirely validates mine in my first post in this thread. The conservatives have no interest at all in forming a third party – their interest is in eliminating the moderates within the Republican party. I’d like to encourage them in that endeavor. Purge, baby, purge. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2009, 3:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possible-3rd-party-forming-on-the-right/514942/268 "2009-11-04T15:06:42Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > 1. However, between 9/30/01 and 9/30/08, seven years that were all Bush, the national debt went from $5.8 trillion to $10 trillion. Meant to provide a [link](http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm). ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2009, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possible-3rd-party-forming-on-the-right/514942/269 "2009-11-04T16:37:57Z")
[Josh Marshall reports](http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2009/11/tea_leaves_readem_here.php?ref=fpblg) that Maine and Washington both had Taxpayer Bill of Rights referenda on the ballot, and both lost. They’re the sort of thing that anti-tax, limited-government types love. Meanwhile, referenda on Teh Gay went pro-gay in Washington, and anti-gay in Maine. So if the GOP’s showing yesterday was about limited government and all that, the results demonstrated that in funny ways. ---
**Author:** ![MovieMogul](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f08c70/32.png) [@MovieMogul](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MovieMogul)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2009, 10:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possible-3rd-party-forming-on-the-right/514942/270 "2009-11-04T22:56:29Z")
> [@Boyo\_Jim](#): > > The conservative victory was in destroying the moderate Repub candidate, and in succeeding to get the Republican national leadership to basically repudiate her. The actual election was secondary – more or less a casualty of war. > > IMO, this entirely eliminates Sam’s opinion in his OP, and entirely validates mine in my first post in this thread. The conservatives have no interest at all in forming a third party – their interest is in eliminating the moderates within the Republican party. [Yup](http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2009/11/sarah-palins-purity-problem): > [@](#): > > With their anti-Scozzafava campaign, Palin, Glenn Beck, Dick Armey and other conservative firebrands declared they were not going to accept moderate Republicans as candidates, and they have emboldened grassroots right-wing activists to continue this crusade. That is, the former Alaska governor and the others have unleashed the furies. As has been widely noted, therein lies potential trouble for the party. An ideological civil war probably won’t be good for business for the GOP—though these conservatives clearly believe that right-wing purity is the best path for a Republican return to power. Still, Palin may run into a dilemma of her own. > > Revved up by the purge in New York, tea partiers across the nation are now salivating—did you happen to see Zombieland?—as they eagerly search for other prey. They already have a list of RINOs (Republicans in name only) to hunt. On their to-get list is Charlie Crist, the Republican governor in Florida, who’s running for the Senate. Marco Rubio, a conservative former state senator, is challenging him for the GOP nomination. Also in the crosshairs for conservatives are Republican Rep. Mark Kirk, who is seeking Obama’s old Senate seat in Illinois, and possibly incumbent Republican Sen. Robert Bennett in Utah. Bennett’s being opposed in the GOP primary by a conservative activist who has Joseph Wurzelbacher, better known as Joe the Plumber, campaigning for her. Diehard conservatives—their blood lust heightened—seem to be adding names to their execution wish list almost daily. > > Though Palin led this merry band in the battle of NY-23, she now might have to worry about these activists, especially if she’s pondering a presidential bid. With the Hoffman quasi-victory—or was it a Pyrrhic victory?—the grassroots conservatives have had their expectations raised. As they rush after other Republicans not deemed ideologically correct, many will look to Palin to continue leading the charge. But going after a no-name assemblywoman is a different matter than targeting sitting governors, senators, and House members. Is Palin truly willing to lead pitchfork-waving conservatives against well-established Republicans, such as Crist? Florida, after all, could be an important state in the GOP presidential primary. Should be interesting how it pans out… [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possible-3rd-party-forming-on-the-right/514942.md?page=13)