If the GOP nominates Romney

[Jazz Ambassador]

What do you think the odds are of a 3rd-party run by a teabaggers?

It seems to me that, given the extreme antipathy for Romney among teabaggers (really, go over to Freep sometime and do a search for his name), there's definitely a voting population who would be up for such a run. It also seems to me that a 3rd-party candidacy is a perfect fit for Palin, since she wouldn't have to attend all those demeaning primary debates pitting her against candidates who actually know things. I could see Cain going third-party, Perot style, too.

Obviously, such a development would be a gift to the Dems. How likely is it, do you think?

[yellowcanine]

1. That is a big reason why it won't happen, imo.

[polmaven]

11. I would agree with you ..

IF the teabaggers had the power of logical thinking.....but, we all know they apparently do not.

[yellowcanine]

12. I meant Romney won't get nominated. The teabaggers will see to it.

[JoePhilly]

2. High

The Evangelicals HATE Romney and all Mormons. They hate them even more than they hate Obama. Many African Americans are Baptists of one form or another. And so sure, they don't like "the blacks", but the Baptist part settles them some.

But for those folks ... Mormons are a cult who follows agents of the Anti-Christ (they think most Catholics do as well).

So when Fox News calls on them to "vote Mormon" ... many of these folks will say "hell no" because to do so would ensure they spend eternity in a lake of fire.

[Ter]

7. They would be perfectly fine with Mormon Utah Sen. Mike Lee

Or Catholic Pat Buchanan. They may not like their religion, but when they agree, they will vote for any Christian except maybe a Jehovah's Withdrawnness.

[JoePhilly]

8. They don't think Mormons aren't Christians ...

During the 2008 primaries Wolf blitzer asked Ralph Reed and James Carville "are Mormons Christians?"

Carville immediately says "Yes." Goes on on say a few words but its all "yes".

Wolf repeats the question to Reed.

Reed won't answer it. He stutters and stammers like a fool. He knows that he can't say No, because the evangelical crazies will go nuts. And he can't say YES, because he wants Mormons to vote as part of the "Christian block" without knowing that they are not really part of it.

If you go over to FreeRepublic and say you support Romney, you'll get kicked off the site.

I can't see people with that level of religious zealotry voting for a person that is openly a member of a "cult".

Generally speaking, they have a slightly higher tolerance for Catholics ... although there is still a huge chunk of these nuts who claim the pope is an agent of the anti-Christ ... Rev Haggee is a good example ... that's the guy McCain wooed during the 2008 primaries. Once McCain got his endorsement, McCain had to walk it back because Haggee ups the volume on his anti-Catholic rhetoric.

This is also the reason that McCain, who'd been an Episcopalian for years, spent most of the primary claiming that he was actually a Baptist. Even though no one could find out when he became such. McCain was doing this because he too knows of this anti-Catholic bias.

We're talking about people who want a US Theocracy, founded on fundamentalist evangelical, Baptist Christianity.

[Solomon]

10. As against Obama, I think they will vote for a Mormon.

I really do. I believe that would be less objectionable to them than letting the black guy win again.

We'll soon see.

[JoePhilly]

14. The thing is ... we are talking about religious zealots.

Many of them are also racists. And they hate Democrats. But much of that is not founded in their religious beliefs. Its more an extension.

And this is why they won't vote for Romney in a primary (they will vote for Palin, Bachmann or some other nut), and if he were to win, which he really can't do unless the whack jobs are divided, then the whack jobs, whose candidates will have lost, will be pissed at fellow Republicans. If Palin endorses him, she'll lose lots of her idiot supporters.

We had some of this after Obama beat Hillary. And those differences were not religious. First African American, first woman, created anger. But in the end, the reaility was that both Obama and Hillary were very similar politically. Regardless of which one took the primary, that person was going to win, Dems would get behind them.

The evangelicals define their entire lives on their narrow view of religion and Christianity. They are not voting on issues.

[Demeter]

3. I'm hoping for it

[RyanPsych]

4. Honestly- Romney is the biggest threat to Dems

so if he is nominated- I hope there is some 3rd party righty

[RBInMaine]

5. We'll chew him up and spit him out as the corporate job-killing flipflopper he is.

[emulatorloo]

6. Absolutely.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

9. On the bright side...even if there is not - maybe the baggers will

stay home...and start planning for 2016?. Tweety thinks Palin is on a mission to
discredit and sabotage Romney. Surely she sees he has the best chance against O - which
shows me that she doesn't care about defeating O in 2012.

[yellowcanine]

13. There may be something to that. The worst scenario for baggers is for a "moderate" Republican to

beat Obama in 2012. Then they would not have a chance in 2016, because even if the moderate Republican president crashed and burned, there would be no path to victory for a bagger. The best they could do is to simply be spoilers in 2016.

That said, I find it hard to believe that Barbie has that much political astuteness to have such a strategy. I think she is just doing what "comes naturally", which is to blow her own horn long and loudly.