In response to:

Republican Annihilation Is Not Likely

Frank130 Wrote: Jan 28, 2013 10:12 AM
The only reason the GOP is still around is because third Party candidates get excluded from the Presidential debates & it's very difficult to get 3rd Party candidates on the ballot. This is due to the duopoly wherein both the Ds & Rs agree to legally squeeze out any 3rd Party challengers. I'm fairly sure that if 3rd Party candidates were in the Presidential debates & had easy ballot access, the big government loving, Constitution trashing Establishment part of the GOP would collapse. Instead it appears that the nation will collapse financially before the GOP is reformed or replaced by a 3rd Party. The Democrats will remain the big government, tax & spend Party that wants to "redistribute the wealth".
csadowski Wrote: Jan 28, 2013 11:24 AM
Face reality pal, they have the power. By the way you helped Obama win if you didn't vote Rep. How does it feel to have the destroyer in chief still in charge because of your 3rd party dream.
ppotts Wrote: Jan 28, 2013 11:54 AM
thats what the 3rd party does. It sets things up for disruption and is only there to take away a few extra votes from the opposition. All the people I know from this mindset are really liberals and commies . I really see no difference between them and their democrat brothers. Its a way to catch the swing vote and void it.
LastStand Wrote: Jan 28, 2013 1:24 PM
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
As a Brit once asked me, "So how do you like taxation WITH representation?"

The point being that if your representatives don't vote for the things you believe in or do vote for things you don't believe in, what difference does it make?

Marco Rubio is one of my Senators...but he's pushing for Amnesty.
So how, exactly, does it matter if he's got an "R" next to his name when he's voting the same way my other Senator, Bill Nelson, does who has a "D" next to his name?

I would rather withhold my vote and let my enemy win by default rather than reward a traitor for betraying me.

No, when Rubio comes up for re-election, this Florida I-4 corridor voter will most certainly NOT be voting for him.
Kyll-Why-T Wrote: Jan 28, 2013 11:03 AM
I would suggest that it has more to do with a lack of funding for 3rd parties as well as a lack of truly top tier candidates. Look at 1992 when Ross Perot spent a pile of cash and nearly got a viable 3rd party up and running. They were included in the presidential debates, held some congressional seats and even a governorship or two. But as they failed to continue finding good charismatic candidates the bit of money that was there dried up and by 2002 the Independece party was pretty much a thing of the past.

Find a source of money and a good spokesperson/leader and you'll have a 3rd party.
These days, our political parties are defined by their presidents. Their policies and their programs tend to become their respective parties' orthodoxies.

And the perceived success or failure of those policies and programs tends to determine how the parties' candidates, even those who don't support many of them, do at the polls.

This has been especially true in the past two decades, in which fewer Americans have been splitting their tickets or changing their minds from election to election than was the case from the 1950s to the 1980s.

For years, white Southerners voted Republican or for a third-party candidate in presidential elections and...