Republicans show signs of Split.

[Greed and Death]

The main GOP delegation from Maine, which leans libertarian, seeks to continue to Support Ron Paul( no one ever accused these guys of quitting). A challenge from what appears to be Romney seeks to unseat the delegates at the convention, unless they agree to support Romney. The delegation has rejected the compromise.

I think this is a poor tactic for Romney, The GOP needs to adopt a policy of appearing more big tent rather than the smaller your with us or against us appearance they currently produce.

Further, the GOP needs the libertarian wing to do well in the elections. Even with the seeking the Presidency is unlikely, but they would need the wing to win the Senate which is far more likely result of the election.

So what says NSG, good, bad, Muahhahaha ?

[TaQud]

who is this benefiting the most?

[Samuraikoku]

What happened to the "United We Stand" classic folklore?

[Vazeckta]

Republicans will split, weaken them and the democrats will win out nationally for a while. Of course some die-hard red stays will remain, but as we see in Maine, I think that many less authoritarian republicans will begin to defect to the Libertarian party.

[Herskerstad]

who is this benefiting the most?

The democratic party, and unless there is a significant split, it'll most likely be a limited spill that will fix itself long before the election. If not, it will be a Ralph Nader like effect, but this is highly unlikely.

Even the libertarian party knows that on the scale of realism the Washington monument has a more significant chance of securing the nomination than Ron Paul. Very little independent support, relatively low Republican appeal, democrats only seem to like him on the occasional time part of their wing talk about non interventionism or the drug war, absolutely zero minority appeal. Not near enough money, not near enough political friends to challenge someone as competent as Obama in matters of elections. Seen as unpractical on a general scale, admired for his steadfastness sure, but reimplementing the gold standard, looking at how the housing market eclipses it even on a bad day? Anyone with a hint of macroeconomic understanding could understand the horrendous effects that would have and Churchill failed miserably long ago along the same economical lines, although this time it would be much worse. I also doubt cheap, industrialized meth would do wonders for communities such as Chicago and Baltimore, as the gangs there, not merely organized crime, but also a popular lifestyle while in all probability will drag more communities into such frantic levels.

[Greed and Death]

who is this benefiting the most?

Honestly if the Split broadens, I see the Democrats taking back the House, something unlikely with the current districts if the Republicans remain United.

[Divair]

who is this benefiting the most?

Democrats. If the GOP splits, the Democrats will easily win a majority for quite a while. Maybe we'll be able to actually get stuff done.

[Farnhamia]

who is this benefiting the most?

Democrats. If the GOP splits, the Democrats will easily win a majority for quite a while. Maybe we'll be able to actually get stuff done.

You mean like we did back in 2009 and 2010, when we controlled both houses?

[TaQud]

so basically Democrats would have the biggest benefit... (thanks to the last 3 posts)

[Greed and Death]

Democrats. If the GOP splits, the Democrats will easily win a majority for quite a while. Maybe we'll be able to actually get stuff done.

You mean like we did back in 2009 and 2010, when we controlled both houses?

Sadly elections do not give back bone.

[Silent Majority]

I'm not really sure it would benefit the more libertarian republicans to split off from the party, I don't think there are enough of them that a third party would gain much if any electoral success. Currently they benefit from the resources, and media attention brought from being associated with a major party, and both those would disappear if there were a split.

[Farnhamia]

You mean like we did back in 2009 and 2010, when we controlled both houses?

Sadly elections do not give backbone.

Truly. It's like Will Rogers said, "I don't belong to any organized political party. I'm a Democrat."

[Khadgar]

Good old Ron Paul, not content to simply be a failure, he has to drag down the rest of the Republican party with him.

[Farnhamia]

I'm not really sure it would benefit the more libertarian republicans to split off from the party, I don't think there are enough of them that a third party would gain much if any electoral success. Currently they benefit from the resources, and media attention brought from being associated with a major party, and both those would disappear if there were a split.

Remember, these are people who think Ron Paul would be good for the country.

[Greed and Death]

Good old Ron Paul, not content to simply be a failure, he has to drag down the rest of the Republican party with him.

It is his followers, My guess is his Son will be put on the VP ticket, and Ron Paul will get to speak at the RNC.

[Ruridova]

who is this benefiting the most?

The Democrats.

[Farnhamia]

Good old Ron Paul, not content to simply be a failure, he has to drag down the rest of the Republican party with him.

It is his followers, My guess is his Son will be put on the VP ticket, and Ron Paul will get to speak at the RNC.

"Romney-Paul 2012"? It does have a ring to it, I have to admit, though "Mitt/Rand" sounds a bit like a recent French President.

[Ethel mermania]

While I don't know the infighting and rules,and whether romney's folks are right or wrong. unseating paul would make romney look more middle of the road to america. Giving him a more orderly convention, and better being able to show the party united behind him.

And who are the paul supporters going to vote for? Obama?

[Hittanryan]

Democrats. If the GOP splits, the Democrats will easily win a majority for quite a while. Maybe we'll be able to actually get stuff done.

You mean like we did back in 2009 and 2010, when we controlled both houses?

Damn blue dogs...

[Greed and Death]

It is his followers, My guess is his Son will be put on the VP ticket, and Ron Paul will get to speak at the RNC.

"Romney-Paul 2012"? It does have a ring to it, I have to admit, though "Mitt/Rand" sounds a bit like a recent French President.

If you look at the primaries, the one person Paul never attacked was Romney like he did the other candidates. So it is possible he may endorse Mitt.

[Greed and Death]

You mean like we did back in 2009 and 2010, when we controlled both houses?

Damn blue dogs...

Even the regular Democrats drug things out. A few hecklers form a town hall meeting and it took the President to get them back on track.

[Khadgar]

While I don't know the infighting and rules,and whether romney's folks are right or wrong. unseating paul would make romney look more middle of the road to america. Giving him a more orderly convention, and better being able to show the party united behind him.

And who are the paul supporters going to vote for? Obama?

A refusal to vote for Romney is a de facto vote for Obama, at least in several states.

[Hittanryan]

Damn blue dogs...

Even the regular Democrats drug things out. A few hecklers form a town hall meeting and it took the President to get them back on track.

Yeah, the Congressional Democrats were pretty worthless as a whole, even discounting the blue dogs.

[Simon Cowell of the RR]

Thank goodness. Ron Paul needs to form some new Ayn Rand-themed party.

[Greed and Death]

While I don't know the infighting and rules,and whether romney's folks are right or wrong. unseating paul would make romney look more middle of the road to america. Giving him a more orderly convention, and better being able to show the party united behind him.

And who are the paul supporters going to vote for? Obama?

A refusal to vote for Romney is a de facto vote for Obama, at least in several states.

If your in a swing state not voting for Romney is a vote for Obama.