Will the US Republican Party divide during the 2016 election?(a prediction)

Now that the year of the election is upon the US, and the political muck is being stirred to grease up the minds of millions, so the corporate elite can set up the great summer race full of Pepsi v Coke stylized adds in order to milk millions more out of innocent citizens, do the citizens of the US now face a strange repeat in history?

With Trump's and McCain's newest calls for a real answer to the question of Ted Cruz's birthpresenting legitimacy issues for Sen. Cruz, the GOP has begun to divide itself between some original ideas.

In 1856, John C. Freemont ran as the 1st candidate of the newly formed Republican party(other presidents called themselves Republican's, but the party as we know it today started here). The party formed mainly on the grounds of distrust of the strength southern Democrats controlled economically and politically. Some parties that contributed to the Republican party were; former Whigs, abolitionist, anti-Masons party, "Know-nothings"(anti-immigration), and fundamental Christian prohibitionist. In the election of 1856 during the primary, the GOP divided on an argument of them importance between two issues, slavery and immigration.
Link to more info

Candidate---------------------Party----------------Electoral-------Popular
James Buchanan----------Democratic----------174-----------1,838,169
John C. Fremont----------Republican-----------114-----------1,341,264
Millard Fillmore----------American--------------8---------------873,000

Source for info



This did not throw the election, Buchanan was going to win regardless of the split, but with Trump and Cruz pushing two different "fixes" to America's problems, could we see a major split in the party after the primaries?

Currently, it takes 270 electoral votes to win, some projections show:

Party----------Projected wins(EC)------------Undecided(EC)
Democrats-------217----------------------------- 53 --
Republicans-----191------------------------------79

Source of info

Splitting the party this year might just throw the POTUS to the Democrats. If only a few of the 79 votes fall into Democrats hands the election is done. Bern and Hillary will not fracture anything and whoever loses endorses the other immediately, with the GOP I am not so sure. The issues are between, terror/anti-immigration(Trump) and moral fundamentalism(Cruz).

So, with history and a little guesswork I give my prediction:

Candidate--------Party-------------Electoral votes
H. Clinton--------Dem---------------271
D. Trump---------Republican-------200
T. Cruz------------Tea?----------------68

Opinions, Other guesses, prediction, dreams, and/or truths are welcome in response, but please play nice.

I think the GOP will not nominate Trump but will float Jeb as their choice.
Donald will run an ineffectual write in campaign, not 3rd party, and fragment the Republicans.

But all that doesn't matter. Some how, some way Jeb will be sitting in the WH come 2017.

The popular vote is a sham.

a reply to: hubrisinxs
Not so implausible, because there are other precedents.
To an outside observer, it looks as though the old Democrat party split fatally in 1968 between Humphreys and Wallace. At least before then it used to be taken for granted that "the South is Democrat", and apparently that's not true any more. Hence Nixon, Reagan...
A real split would probably need something more solid than a difference of opinion, perhaps a social or regional basis.

originally posted by: olaru12
I think the GOP will not nominate Trump but will float Jeb as their choice.
Donald will run an ineffectual write in campaign, not 3rd party, and fragment the Republicans.

But all that doesn't matter. Some how, some way Jeb will be sitting in the WH come 2017.

The popular vote is a sham.

This is one of those times when I'm gonna have to disagree with you.

I don't think Jeb will ever see the inside of the WH again unless he does so as a tourist or by invitation.

Then again, I don't think we're gonna see any Republican in the WH for quite some time.

But.....I've been wrong before.

originally posted by: Flatfish

originally posted by: olaru12
I think the GOP will not nominate Trump but will float Jeb as their choice.
Donald will run an ineffectual write in campaign, not 3rd party, and fragment the Republicans.

But all that doesn't matter. Some how, some way Jeb will be sitting in the WH come 2017.

The popular vote is a sham.

This is one of those times when I'm gonna have to disagree with you.

I don't think Jeb will ever see the inside of the WH again unless he does so as a tourist or by invitation.

Then again, I don't think we're gonna see any Republican in the WH for quite some time.

But.....I've been wrong before.

I hope you are right! More of the Bush clan neocon wars haven't worked out well in the past.

originally posted by: DISRAELI
a reply to: hubrisinxs
Not so implausible, because there are other precedents.
To an outside observer, it looks as though the old Democrat party split fatally in 1968 between Humphreys and Wallace. At least before then it used to be taken for granted that "the South is Democrat", and apparently that's not true any more. Hence Nixon, Reagan...
A real split would probably need something more solid than a difference of opinion, perhaps a social or regional basis.

Actually, there was a total reversal of party principles and it began in 1964 when LBJ, a southern Democrat, signed the Civil Rights Act into law. It just had to fester for a few years before it was realized.

It was the "final straw that broke the camel's back" for the Democratic South as they refused to be associated with the party that awarded equal rights to blacks.

That's when the Democratic South, or blue states, (same ones that made up the Confederacy) turned red and the opposite occurred in the Republican North, or red states, as they turned blue.

If you don't believe me, just pull out a Confederate map showing what used to be the Democratic South and make your own comparison. Looks kinda like the red, Republican South of today now doesn't it?

a reply to: DISRAELI

I think we are already seeing the divide based on socioeconomic conditions. You go heartland American fundamental Republicans and then big-business neo-conservative Republicans, two groups who seem to not agree on any of the issues anymore.

a reply to: Flatfish
Certainly I believe you! That was the impression I picked up from reading bits of history.

(I must admit your colour-coding system is what confuses me. In my own country, "red" means Socialist, and it is the conservatives who are "true blue")

a reply to: hubrisinxs
I see. That does look like a recipe for long-term re-alignments.
It reminds me of another precedent in the break-up of Gladstone's Liberal Party, officially on the subject of Home Rule for Ireland. One of the factors was the social difference between the more aristocratic Whigs, who broke away, and the Radicals who remained behind. I'm always tempted to see a resemblance between that and the Democrats of 1968.

Even more to the point, perhaps, the break-up of Peel's Conservative Party, with the original leaders going in one direction, while the more conservative rump ended up being led by my namesake.

originally posted by: DISRAELI
a reply to: Flatfish
Certainly I believe you! That was the impression I picked up from reading bits of history.

(I must admit your colour-coding system is what confuses me. In my own country, "red" means Socialist, and it is the conservatives who are "true blue").

Yeah, I'll admit our system is a bit confusing.

Over here, blue means liberal or progressive and red means conservative while both are somewhat socialistic.

It just that one party won't admit to their socialistic side until you try to take away their Medicare or their Social Security.

They rather portray socialistic principles as some kind of disease than to admit they have any positive attributes whatsoever.

originally posted by: DISRAELI
a reply to: Flatfish
Certainly I believe you! That was the impression I picked up from reading bits of history.

(I must admit your colour-coding system is what confuses me. In my own country, "red" means Socialist, and it is the conservatives who are "true blue")

Color in American politics are mostly irrelevant. And I would say both the democrats and the republicans would be "right wing" compared to any real socialist political party.

On topic I don't see the republicans falling apart this election season. Yes, there's a lot of road blocks because Donald Trump is popular than the majority of the other republican candidates running but I can see the GOP getting behind if he's nominated.

There are still a lot of reasons to believe the GOP establishment would not rally behind a Trump candidacy.

And if Trump loses or starts to lose and doesn't play the good soldier like an actual republican it could be even messier especially if he questions the validity of the process. There's no telling what he might say or do.

There are quite a few among the republican party who make a good bit of sense on a number of issues. Unfortunately, in this version of the GOP, those are also the shunned among the party. "NEO Cons" RHINO's" they like to belittle them as.

As long as the party is only content with pushing their far right wing members, they will struggle in Presidential elections. Putting a Trump or a Cruz out there as the nominee is a blueprint for failure. You simply can't push an extremist agenda and get the required percentage of the swing vote. I don't want to hear this garbage about how republicans didn't vote in 2012 because they didn't like Romney. That's baloney. Voters vote. Non-voters run their mouths and that's all they do.

People who are perfectly fine with potentially voting for the Republican nominee, even if they voted for Obama twice, will pretty much automatically vote for the Democrat nominee after hearing a Cruz or a Trump in an actual Presidential debate. Especially the social issues aspect. That alone would drive people away from the GOP ticket. It did in 2012, and Romney was a lovable puppy compared to a Cruz or a Trump.

If the only people voting for you come from your base, you simply can't win the Presidency. You can get a seat in Congress. You can become a governor of your state, but not the Presidency, which seems to be the only race people are willing to take five minutes out of their precious lives to vote for.

a reply to: usernameconspiracy

Wow, what a thought provoking and wonderful response.

People who are perfectly fine with potentially voting for the Republican nominee, even if they voted for Obama twice, will pretty much automatically vote for the Democrat nominee after hearing a Cruz or a Trump in an actual Presidential debate. Especially the social issues aspect.

Then why are they, Carson and Rubio all leading the parties nomination. Where is the representation from the regular less extreme Republicans? or perhaps this is a nefarious plan by corporations to take away the government from the citizens?

a reply to: usernameconspiracy

They'll run from Trump or Cruz to who Hillary?

Don't make everyone here laugh.

This election will not be who do you like. It will be which one do you not hate.

Because both people are terrible persons it will come down to identity politics.

Trump will crush with white men, and married people
Hillary will crush with single moms and single women.
Black and Hispanic men play spoiler.