• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should the Conservatives and Tea Party join.

Should the Conservatives and Tea Party create their own political party

  • Yes

    Votes: 7 29.2%
  • No

    Votes: 6 25.0%
  • The GOP should push both of them out of the Republican party

    Votes: 4 16.7%
  • Other (explain)

    Votes: 7 29.2%

  • Total voters
    24
  • Poll closed .
Absolutely. They should form a third party - leave the GOP - and run candidates across the board for all offices ASAP.

although that sounds like the correct form of action, it would have negative results for the GOP, which i know you would love to see.

it would DESTROY the GOP's opportunity to take the senate this year, and leave them smaller, and a small tea party.

leaving the democrats the ability to weather the storm because of obamacare /Obama's executive orders the people do not like, and his failed policies.

understand i am just pointing out what would happen, and your great desire for the split.
 
although that sounds like the correct form of action, it would have negative results for the GOP, which i know you would love to see.

it would DESTROY the GOP's opportunity to take the senate this year, and leave them smaller, and a small tea party.

leaving the democrats the ability to weather the storm because of obamacare /Obama's executive orders the people do not like, and his failed policies.

understand i am just pointing out what would happen, and your great desire for the split.

I believe we just heard you name your price for ones libertarians "favors". Which makes you.... well that is obvious now isn't it?
 
I think the GOP should kick the RINOs out.Let them form their own party.They could simply join the democrats or call themselves democrat lites(spelled sort of like miller lite).
Me too.
 
I believe we just heard you name your price for ones libertarians "favors". Which makes you.... well that is obvious now isn't it?

no you just heard from me what would happen if the GOP split from the tea party, and that you would favor that, i spoke nothing for myself.......you saw something [on your own ]which was not in my statement.
 
I think US conservatives should bail on the Repugnantcants and form a Conservative Party and liberals should leave the Democratic Party to the pseudo-libbos and whiny-lefties and form a Liberal Party. Watch democracy bloom in the USA then.
 
Do you think the Conservatives and Tea party should split off from the main stream GOP and create their own political party.
1) Yes
2) No
3) The GOP should push both of them out of the Republican party
4) Other (explain)

The Conservatives and the Tea Party certainly have their own ideas on how the Country should be governed.
If they think they have the right ideas and wide support of the people, then why do they not create their own political party.

They both think the speaker of the house should be fired, that taxes are too high, regulations should be relaxed, they both want to do away with food stamps or drastically reduce them. They want to change SS and eventually do away with it. And lots of other things.

They don't like or agree with the main stream GOP and yet are happy to live under the umbrella of the GOP.

If they created their own party they would be able to get their own message out without being held to the GOP standards.
I'm sure they could find lots of business donors as well as private citizens to donate to them. They could possibly take several Republicans, Independents and who knows, maybe even some Democrats with them.

I know it's hard, but lets try to have a civil discussion and not a pissing match.

This is a private poll in an effort to keep it as civil as possible

When the Tea Party first came into existence, I thought they might just form their own party back then. But there is a very good reason they didn’t and decided to come under the umbrella of the Republican Party. Being Republicans and Democrats write the election laws as a mutual protection act, any new party would have to jump through hoops just to get on the ballot. Republicans and Democrats have automatic ballot access, all other have to go through 50 different state election laws with petitions and the like just to get on. There are different time frames and the number of signatures per vary state by state.

Then there is financing of campaigns if one is lucky enough to get on the ballot. The two major parties pretty well have all those special interests, corporations, Wall Street firms already tied up and in their hip pocket. The Tea Party wouldn’t last long as a separate party. Better to be a minority faction within the larger Republican Party.
 
You stole that from the Rolling Stones!

They stole it from me!

Jagger - July 26, 1943
Specklebang - August 5, 1943

That's what happens when you talk to the next crib.

Trust no-one.
 
no you just heard from me what would happen if the GOP split from the tea party, and that you would favor that, i spoke nothing for myself.......you saw something [on your own ]which was not in my statement.

the favors they are willing to trade are votes for power. They have named their price and their occupation accordingly.
 
It would be more feasible to simply kick all the RINO's and Establishment GOPer's off the island into the cesspool that is the Democratic Party...
 
I don't even know what all the various sub-groups of the "Tea Party" actually stand for.

I probably agree with them in part.

But no, I do not think they should join with anyone - we have too many large groupings in politics as it is.
 
The idea of compromise is sacrifice parts of what you want, to get enough of what you need.

What if is something you do not want.For example if you are an abortionists and pro-life politicians want to ban abortion.Do you want your pro-choice candidates to compromise with them? Not really a compromise if it is something you do not want them compromising on. An abortionist would not want their elected officials compromising with pro-lifer on an anti-abortion law. Someone who is actually pro-2nd amendment would not want their elected compromising with Obama,Pelosi or some other anti-2nd amendment politician on gun control.Someone who is actually against illegal immigration will not want their elected officials compromising with pro-illegals on a so-called immigration reform bill.
 
What if is something you do not want.For example if you are an abortionists and pro-life politicians want to ban abortion.Do you want your pro-choice candidates to compromise with them? Not really a compromise if it is something you do not want them compromising on. An abortionist would not want their elected officials compromising with pro-lifer on an anti-abortion law. Someone who is actually pro-2nd amendment would not want their elected compromising with Obama,Pelosi or some other anti-2nd amendment politician on gun control.Someone who is actually against illegal immigration will not want their elected officials compromising with pro-illegals on a so-called immigration reform bill.

I could come up with a number of compromises on each topic you mention but I don't want to end up discussing hot button topics and I don't want to hear about slippery slopes or Presidents lies. I realize this is a cop-out but I'm not feeling well today and I'm not up for heated debate.

There are partial concessions readily possible on all those topics. Reasonable ones. But there must be a desire for solutions and there must be trust. I doubt we are capable of such things as trust so we settle for our polarization. Maybe someday we'll evolve, but certainly not yet.

My apology for the minimal response.
 
I'd actually like to see something along the lines of "Alliance to forward X", or something, which would involve multiple parties working together to promote one or a few things they agreed on - perhaps compromising to get those things accomplished...

Edit: Seems highly unlikely though.
 
Do you think the Conservatives and Tea party should split off from the main stream GOP and create their own political party.

Absolutely not. For both practical and ideological political reasons.

First, the practical. By fragmenting the "right voting" base in a significant degree you basically are assuring a number of election cycles where the chances of any right leaning voice to win is slim to none. You basically would need to be willing for anywhere from 4 to 20 years of left leaning control of government as a shift occurs where this "new" party is actually on equal enough footing to be a significant and legitimate challenge.

You speak about some of the reasons why you think it'd work well and quickly. You name business as one. It's true, compared to more moderate and "establishment" GOP types, many in the Tea Party movement want less regulation. On the flip side, they also want less government subsidies going to businesses as well. Believing that you're going to win over the business vote in such a split, especially immedietely, is not realistic imho.

Additionally, name recognition matters. Branding matters. It's the case in almost every form of advertising, including political. The Republican Party has name recognition as a national party far more than anything the Conservative/Tea Party would be able to put together. When it comes time for the big elections, at least in the near term, those who don't keep up with politics closely are going to likely see this party as nothing but a run of the mill third party...destined to not win. The standard thought process of people is "republicans = Right leaning vote that matters".

If you're willing to lose multiple electoin cycles in the name of theoritically assured ideological purity than it'd be a worth while endevour. However, by doing so you may create a situation where you've allowed the country to move so far to the left as you've ceeded election after election to the Democrats that there's little you can really do by that point.

However, the problem is that there's pitfalls ideologically as well...

The Tea Party fails as a POLITICAL PARTY (which thankfully, by and large, it doesn't try to be) because it's core tennets that connect the movement do not cover everything a political parties platform needs to hold. There are a number of wedge issues, abortion and gay marriage amongst them, that the core planks of the tea party movement don't touch on. The reason the Tea Party was successful as a movement in 2010 was becuase it was a congressional cycle, allowing multiple candidates that shared a common baseline but whose supporting views were able to be matched to the locality that they were running in. The reason the Tea Party was significantly less successful in 2012 was because it was a Presidential cycle which nationalizes the message. Suddenly, instead of each local Tea Party group being able to get behind a candidate whose ancillary views were tailored to their regional care you needed the entire movement nation wide to get behind one candidate....and that didn't happen.

Why?

Because while the members of the TPM all share common values and thoughts regarding fiscal and governmental issues, there was a great divide (partially based on region) when it came to ancillary issues. And for some TPM members, those ancillary issues were as important, if not MORE important, than the planks of the Tea Party movement. So while a Tea Party member down in Alabama may've loved Rick Santorum, one in Vermont probably couldn't stomach him due to his social views. While a TPM in Nevada may've liked Ron Paul's stance regarding the military, one in Virginia may've detested it.

You'd run into the same issue with a "Conservative" or "Tea Party" party. You're not going to get everyone that views themselves as a "tea partier" simply by calling it a Tea Party party, because you'll have to have official stances on those ancillary topics and whatever those stances are you'll likely drive away some of the potential voters. Especially considering that the entire reason for breaking from the GOP would be to essentially ostericize those who don't DIRECLTY agree with this new party on EVERY facet of it's platform.

With each new thing you add onto the platform that you demand everyone MUST agree with you widdle down your potential base more and more and more. And if you don't demand such and you try to be inclusive to people who agree with most of the platform, then it begs the question why the split from the GOP in the first place.

The best thing that the Tea Party and staunch Conservatives can do is to continue to try and work within the GOP. It will take the same amount of time, multiple election cycles, to actually affect change....but in the mean time, instead of just LOSING election after election to Democrats you'd at least have a chance of winning some with guys you like, and winning some with guys you at least like better than democrats. Use the primary process, get people of that ideology working their way into leadership positions, continue to work within and change can occur within the party. But trying to split it is a losing effort imho.

I don't think having moderates in the party is a bad thing. I don't think having members of the religious right that stand for social conservatism, but like big government when it comes to their morals, is a bad thing. I don't think having libertarians that are strong supports of fiscal and governmental conservatism, but don't like the social wing is a bad thing. I think the party needs all of those under the tent and voting for it to succeed.

What I do think is a problem is when the Party attempts to push any particular facet out of balance with the others. When the party establishment is trying to make "moderate" conservatism the "Norm" for the GOP. Or when the religious right tries to make Social Conservatism THE #1, 2, and 3 priority for the party. Or when Libertarians try to suggest that any amount of focus on social conservatism means they revolt and leave.

The BASLINE for the Party needs to be a balanced soundly conservative view of fiscal, governmental, social, and defense issues. Individual candidates, depending on the region and situation, should be able to accentuate or step back from any particular pillar as necessary and still be welcomed. But an attempt to fundamentally change what the baseline of the party should be, OR attepmting to suggest those outliers can't be welcomed under the tent, is where we start seeing issues.
 
The BASLINE for the Party needs to be a balanced soundly conservative view of fiscal, governmental, social, and defense issues. Individual candidates, depending on the region and situation, should be able to accentuate or step back from any particular pillar as necessary and still be welcomed. But an attempt to fundamentally change what the baseline of the party should be, OR attempting to suggest those outliers can't be welcomed under the tent, is where we start seeing issues.
One problem I have with the Republican party is that, for the last two presidential elections, they have nominated someone who, quite frankly, I cannot agree with. Most recently, to the extent that I could not bring myself to vote for him.

I tend to vote more conservatively, but at the same time I see the republican party as moving ever further away from my views. And while I can agree with democrats on a few things, in the main I disagree and thus very rarely vote for one.

So neither of the two main parties is a viable option.
 
Do you think the Conservatives and Tea party should split off from the main stream GOP and create their own political party.
1) Yes
2) No
3) The GOP should push both of them out of the Republican party
4) Other (explain)

The Conservatives and the Tea Party certainly have their own ideas on how the Country should be governed.
If they think they have the right ideas and wide support of the people, then why do they not create their own political party.

They both think the speaker of the house should be fired, that taxes are too high, regulations should be relaxed, they both want to do away with food stamps or drastically reduce them. They want to change SS and eventually do away with it. And lots of other things.

They don't like or agree with the main stream GOP and yet are happy to live under the umbrella of the GOP.

If they created their own party they would be able to get their own message out without being held to the GOP standards.
I'm sure they could find lots of business donors as well as private citizens to donate to them. They could possibly take several Republicans, Independents and who knows, maybe even some Democrats with them.

I know it's hard, but lets try to have a civil discussion and not a pissing match.

This is a private poll in an effort to keep it as civil as possible

Please define "conservative". Best way to keep it civil.
 
I would hope that the Tea Party recruit liberals. It could be a natural fit for some liberals that are "classic liberals" or FDR liberals. FDR was against the welfare state.
 
Back
Top Bottom