The May 2 Washington Post has this interesting collection of short essays, by six authors, of whether the U.S. would be better off with a third major party. Part of the impetus for this question is the May 6 British election, and part of it is the decision of Governor Charlie Crist to run as an independent for U.S. Senate in Florida.
The commentary by Newt Gingrich is not accurate when it says that the United States has experienced only one switch in the identity of the two major parties since 1828. Gingrich properly acknowledges the mid-1850’s, when the Whig Party mostly died out and the Republican Party became the newest major party. But he ignores the period 1834-1836, when the National Republican Party died and was replaced by the Whig Party. The National Republican Party existed from 1825 through 1835. It ran John Quincy Adams for re-election in 1828, and Henry Clay in 1832. Thanks to Rob Richie for the link.
After the Federalist Party faded out, 1810-1815, the Jeffersonian Republican Party (forerunner of today’s Democratic Party) remained. The two main factions in that party were the National Republicans and the more conservative Radical (or Old) Republicans.
As you note, the National Republicans broke away in 1825 and were eventually replaced by the Whigs.
Interesting, President James Madison, a disciple of Jefferson, usually agreed with the National Republican faction. So, if he had been around later on, he would presumably have been a Whig.
Through the 1828 congressional elections, representatives were generally style as Jacksonians and Administration (supporting Adams). By 1834, they were Democratic and Whigs.
The National Republicans held one presidential convention, when they nominated Clay. John Quincy Adams himself was elected to Congress in 1832 and 1834 as an Anti-Mason, running as a Whig from 1836-46.
I think it is reasonable to consider the National Republicans as a precursor to the Whigs after the factional split in the Democratic-Republicans.
Under a Top 2 Open Primary, Crist could have continued to run as a Republican.
#2: Charlie Crist could run as a Republican in the present setup. But it’s expedient for him to run as an independent, since he knows he would get pulverized in the Republican primary.
In the “top two open primary,” everyone might just as well be an independent.
Marco Rubio will win in November.
Wrong again. Crist will win.
#2: William Wirt, who had been John Quincy Adams’s attorney general, was the Antimasons’ 1832 presidential nominee.
John Quincy was a National Republican, an Antimason, and a Whig. Was he originally a Federalist?
I’m also curious as to whether JQA backed Wirt or Henry Clay for president in 1832.
#4: Would you like to make a little wager?
Steve, last time you and I wagered it was for the 2008 Republican primary and your horse, Romney, didn’t finish first as you bet and then you backed out of the wager. Its not fun when the losing side doesn’t pay up on an honest wager.
Agreed Christ will coast, if the dems had a compelling candidate they could actually take advantage of this, but that’s not happening.
Crist leads in polling since declaring as independent candidate
http://politicalwire.com/archives/2010/05/01/crist_grabs_lead_in_early_poll.html
#6: You must be confusing me with someone else. Romney was not my “horse,” although I certainly preferred him to McCain.
Which reminds me: A friend bet me a steak dinner that Giuliani would be the 2008 GOP nominee, and I’ve yet to collect.