Is the two-party system collapsing?
He cited the familiar litany of problems: demographic change, poor candidates, ideological rigidity, deplorable approval ratings, and a rift between social and economic conservatives.
“It’s leading to some type of crash and reassessment and change,” said Reed, who ran Bob Dole’s 1996 presidential campaign and remains an influential lobbyist and operative. “It can’t continue on this path.”
Reed sketched a hypothetical scenario under which Paul runs for the Republican nomination in 2016, loses after solid showings in Iowa and other states run by supporters of his father (former GOP presidential candidate Ron Paul), bolts the GOP, and mounts a third-party bid that undercuts the Republican nominee.
Paul, a tea-party favorite who was elected to the Senate in 2010, told USA Today on Wednesday that he was interested in running for the Republican presidential nomination in 2016. “I do want to be part of the national debate,” he said.
What are the odds of Paul or another GOP defector splitting the party? Reed asked me to repeat the question—and then grimaced. “There’s a real chance,” he replied.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Nah… it’s just a readjustment of the battle-lines…
Tea Party/Constitutionalists vs. Progs/Commies/I.luv.central.power types.
Pick a side and go for it.
CPT. Charles on February 14, 2013 at 12:48 PM
My issue with Rand Paul, is that he keeps going on how he is a conservative. No, he is not. Until he just comes out and says he is a libertarian Sen. Paul has little credibility with me.
BigGator5 on February 14, 2013 at 12:57 PM
He ran Dole’s campaign and still has any influence? There’s your friggin’ problem.
ddrintn on February 14, 2013 at 12:58 PM
One can only hope. Unfortunately, I think the deck is stacked in favor of the establishment 2 party system. Trying to meet the thresholds to get a 3rd party candidate on the ballot in all 50 states would be a logistical NIGHTMARE. Designing that nightmare is one of the great successes of real bi-partisanship though.
Timin203 on February 14, 2013 at 12:58 PM
Stop running big government statists. Especially ones who feel guilty about any wealth that they have earned (or their spouses have earned) in the free market. And the GOP will be fine. Don’t, and it won’t.
besser tot als rot on February 14, 2013 at 12:58 PM
The best hope may be Fusion Voting. Fusion Voting is not a system of voting but a system of balloting. Under fusion voting (long used in two states) a candidate may appear on the lines of multiple parties. Thus, if the Conservative Party or the United Local Tea Party Alliance want to run the GOP candidate on their lines, they can. Al the votes go to the candidate, but the number of votes that appear on the other lines creates pressure and shows the candidate and the world where the base of support is.
njcommuter on February 14, 2013 at 12:58 PM
Well, he calls himself a “constitutional conservative” which is accurate. And at the federal level, if “true conservatives” are to be believed, libertarian and conservative policies should be nearly identical.
Timin203 on February 14, 2013 at 1:00 PM
Sounds like another liberal columnist daydreaming again. Even Ron Paul wasn’t stupid enough to run 3rd party.
crrr6 on February 14, 2013 at 1:00 PM
Yes, as the GOP keeps morphing into the Democrat party.
Bitter Clinger on February 14, 2013 at 1:00 PM
And why don’t we ever hear “influential Democrat operatives” complaining about “ideological rigidity” within their party?
ddrintn on February 14, 2013 at 1:00 PM
Yeah, NY has a system like that. But we still don’t really see too many third party candidates emerge.
Timin203 on February 14, 2013 at 1:00 PM
Ahem
Timin203 on February 14, 2013 at 1:01 PM
I doubt Rand Paul would do anything like that – he’s already triangulating feverishly in order to win mainstream GOP support – but there’s a distinct possibility that much of the Republican base is fed up, and also that Republican infighting will preclude consistent outreach to any of the other coveted constituencies. And that neither the TP nor the Rovians are strong enough to avert a prolonged and exhausting struggle.
Seth Halpern on February 14, 2013 at 1:03 PM
LOL. Didn’t Rand Paul just tow the GOP party line in his Tea Party response to the SOTU? The Republican Party is here to stay.
sauldalinsky on February 14, 2013 at 1:03 PM
The problem with the two party system is one of BIG government. The nation is too big and too diverse for so many decisions to be made out f DC. It’s impossible to reconcile the preferences of coastal Liberals with flyover conservatives.
That is why we must return to federalism so that more decisions are made at the state and local level.
Charlemagne on February 14, 2013 at 1:04 PM
Yeah, I’m tired of the Beta Male Republicans rolling over and worshiping at the altar of the Progressive State Religion.
I’m also tired of the conservative movement not mobilizing to defund and reform the MSM and the radical academy. Today the MSM smeared the NRA President a “racist” for noting there was looting and criminal activity after Sandy.
It has to stop now.
Punchenko on February 14, 2013 at 1:05 PM
“Splitting the party” seems to be the goal of many. The idea is to elect Democrats at any cost. If that means splitting the Republicans and ensuring the Democrat gets elected with less than 50% of the votes, then so be it.
We need to focus right now on role of government issues. We need a Congress that is focused on repealing and simplifying past legislation that we really just don’t need. We need a Congress that cuts regulations. We need a government that gets itself out of our daily lives.
Until we do that, issues like abortion, contraception, immigration, gay marriage, are just jerking around.
But as for immigration, I will say this: We should allow darned few immigrants into this country any time our unemployment rate is over 6%.
crosspatch on February 14, 2013 at 1:05 PM
Meet 1988.
besser tot als rot on February 14, 2013 at 1:08 PM
Ask a prog if he thinks he considers himself a left-wing zealot, and he’ll tell you no. Ask him how his party today in any way resembles the party of JFK, Truman or Jefferson and watch him sputter – even Clinton in many respects. When will you ever hear an Obama Democrat say the “era of Big Government is over” or sign meaningful welfare reform? You never will.
crrr6 on February 14, 2013 at 1:08 PM
it’s immaterial what we do– Hillary will have the full support of the MSM and entertainment industry, she will steamroll whoever we nominate, even if we unify behind Rubio or whoever
They are already destroying Rubio in the media since Nov 9, 2012.
Until we start playing their game it really doesn’t matter who they run
Attack Hillary now, attack BILL and his faux legacy now (which the media has rewritten), and wear them down for the next 4 years
thurman on February 14, 2013 at 1:09 PM
I think he meant in 2012.
Ward Cleaver on February 14, 2013 at 1:10 PM
Huh? You mean 1992? Was Ross Perot actually a disaffected Republican that I wasn’t aware?
crrr6 on February 14, 2013 at 1:11 PM
Yep. I’ll never donate to or vote for anyone with an R after his/her name ever again. So if conservatives / small government types want my vote, they’re going to have to ditch the R label. I’m sick of it. I don’t care if the progressives have a D or an R after their name, and I don’t see how progressive R’s are in any way better then progressive D’s. We’ve had an unbroken line of progressive presidents since George Bush the Elder. I’m sick of it.
This isn’t football, I’m not going to support “my team” no matter what — I could care less about the actual people in government, only the philosophy. And there is no philosophical daylight between progressive D’s and R’s.
Timin203 on February 14, 2013 at 1:11 PM
Electing a statist who will continue the big government gravy train seems like the goal of most in both parties.
besser tot als rot on February 14, 2013 at 1:11 PM
Ron Paul ran for president on the Libertarian ticket in 1988.
besser tot als rot on February 14, 2013 at 1:12 PM
Ron paul ran has a libertarian in 1988.
Oh.
.
Timin203 on February 14, 2013 at 1:12 PM
So, until e admits that he is a member of a party that has NO influence, you won’t vote for him? And what’s in it for him?
And by “influence” I mean 0 Potus/0 US Senators/0 US Representatives/ o State Senates/0 State House of Representaties/0 US Governorships.
So you are saying Rand ust admit to being a part of a faction that has 0 influence on US policy, at local (no local government is controlled by the LP), state or Federal level. *WOW* You “libertarians” are delusional.
JFKY on February 14, 2013 at 1:14 PM
MSM wishcasting.
Watch what happens to the Democrats “unbreakable coalition” once Barack Obama is off the stage.
rockmom on February 14, 2013 at 1:16 PM
Yeah, though a third party has to be viable nationally to get any results even at the state or local level. That said, it’s one of the few things I think NY does right. I’ll often vote on the Conservative line when it’s the same candidate as is running for the GOP.
As for an overall collapse of the two party system… Eh, wouldn’t be the worst thing long term, but 225 years of history suggests it isn’t happening.
Gingotts on February 14, 2013 at 1:16 PM
No, it’s not football. These people want to redistribute your wealth and health care to their political constituents, take your guns and your ability to organize and speak freely with speech that threatens their political power.
You can vote for the group that’s affirmatively trying to advance this agenda – all of them wearing D’s, or you can vote for the R who, feckless and ineffective as he/she may be at times, seeks to stop them. If you think there is any pro-liberty D’s anymore, you are living in dreamland.
crrr6 on February 14, 2013 at 1:18 PM
or the party that appears to be secretly trying to advance this agenda. Choices, choices.
besser tot als rot on February 14, 2013 at 1:26 PM
The deck is stacked only until one of the two parties collapses, Whig style. Ultimately there is no way Republicans can actually force people to vote for their candidates. The biggest tool they had left to deploy was fear of Obama, and since Obama isn’t running for anything anymore and the Republicans have been passing his agenda with little complaint, the base is likely to start peeling off in earnest now. The Republicans are desperately trying to save themselves through amnesty but given what happened the last time they tried it, it’s obviously not going to work.
Ultimately, we just need to find a credible leader for conservatives at this point. Rand Paul seems to be angling for the job.
Doomberg on February 14, 2013 at 1:28 PM
The Republicans aren’t interested in doing anything to stop Obama as has been made abundantly clear. We heard this talk in the lead up to Romney’s coronation in the primaries and defeat in the general, and what did it get? Depressed primary turnout and a resounding defeat in the general.
Something else must be tried.
Doomberg on February 14, 2013 at 1:33 PM
And which of DC/Marvel’s Multiverses do you live where this is happening?
JFKY on February 14, 2013 at 1:33 PM
You need to get out more. If you’re looking for a reason why they often run away like chickens, I’d like to introduce you to former Congressman Allen West (whom I love, btw).
crrr6 on February 14, 2013 at 1:39 PM
.
So you rplan is to continue to vote for losers…interesting strategy there to defeat the Left.
JFKY on February 14, 2013 at 1:39 PM
No, I am “constitutional conservative” and Rand Paul is a “constitutional libertarian”. There is a difference. Spend a day with a real Ron Paul supporter and you will get to know the difference in short order.
Anyone can belong to any party they chose to be. My step-mom is very much a “constitutional libertarian”, only she is a resigtered Democrat so she can vote in their primary. I think it’s wrong, but she’s an adult. Rand Paul can be a libertarian and honestly be in the Republican Party if he wants to caucus with Republicans (see: Sen. Bernie Sanders.
And I said no such thing. Given a choice between him and a liberal/progressive, I will vote for him without pause. My issue is that of credibility. He says he’s a conservative, but acts and talks like a libertarian.
BigGator5 on February 14, 2013 at 1:41 PM
You assume he’ll be off the state. I’ve talked to quite a few libs who all state categorically that if Obama runs again, they’ll vote for him again, regardless of the Constitution.
“FDR did it.”
If he runs again, he’ll win.
Washington Nearsider on February 14, 2013 at 1:43 PM
Agh,
statestage.Washington Nearsider on February 14, 2013 at 1:44 PM
And this is important, why?
JFKY on February 14, 2013 at 1:45 PM
The universe where a chunk of the base stayed home and cost us the 2012 election? I guess you must be from one of those universes where presidents Dole, Romney, and McCain ushered us into a new era of glory.
Doomberg on February 14, 2013 at 1:46 PM
many people on here aren’t interested in stopping Obama either (L.i.B.) There’s a train of thought that if you want voters to realize what a stupid decision they made (twice!), you need to let Obama hang himself with his own policies and let him own the destruction lock stock and barrel (while simultaneously holding enough power to block the most egregiously insane ideas – usually the ones that make structural changes that are basically impossible to do).
The problem is that the media never holds him accountable and will always blame us whether we block him or not(separate argument). Obama is particularly adept at passing blame, if you haven’t noticed. But, it is not because R’s are interested in what Obama is offering.
crrr6 on February 14, 2013 at 1:50 PM
If I had a nickel for every time the media asked this lame question in the last 30yrs I could retire in style.
Dollayo on February 14, 2013 at 1:59 PM
I think LiB is a terrible idea and amounts to us ceding the field to the Democrats. Look at Hugo Chavez’s Venezuela by way of example. After more than a decade of Chavista socialism, have they learned anything? No, they keep returning him to power.
I think this isn’t going to happen. We can’t just sit back and wait for Obama to self-destruct. That was one of the Romney campaign’s strategies for 2012 and it totally failed. What we need to do is offer a competing vision and something to excite our voters and get them to actually turn out. Right now the Republicans seem to just be muddling along implementing everything Obama gives them in the hope that if they chase him to the left, they’ll pick up more votes. This isn’t going to work, and it already failed us once.
The media is not the problem. We have won elections before in the face of massive opposition by the media. The Republican Party itself is the reason why the Republicans can’t win elections.
Doomberg on February 14, 2013 at 1:59 PM
Ah I see and to an extent I sympathize…but rather than blaming te CONSUMERS, you might try blaming the Product…Otherwise you are saying “The universe where a chunk of the consumers did nt like the taste of New Coke
base stayed homeand cost us sales?”
Mitt coudn’t close the deal, not MY problem…..plus that also uder-counts the strength of Obama’s Campaign at the monetary/tactcal/communications level.
JFKY on February 14, 2013 at 2:02 PM
They said the same thing about Clinton. The truth is, he can’t run again and he won’t run again, end of story.
Dollayo on February 14, 2013 at 2:02 PM
The efficacy of that strategy is nil if they take ownership of the deals through negotiation and compromise. Look at sequester – Obama is blaming it on them even though it was his idea. And let’s not pretend that their negotiated compromises are all that much better than what Obama offered in the first place – so we’re slowing down on that road to the cliff at what 88 mph instead of 90 mph? Except now, the GOP gets to own the consequences just as much as the Dems. Wonderful.
besser tot als rot on February 14, 2013 at 2:08 PM
What two-party system? It’s a one-party system right now. They just use two different names.
The Rogue Tomato on February 14, 2013 at 2:27 PM
No.But the voting models are changing..That is the scary part..
Dire Straits on February 14, 2013 at 2:41 PM