Maybe I shouldn't be, but I'm a little surprised by that (climate change hoax).Well, he's bought into quite a few conspiracy theories. There aren't a lot of conspiracy theorists who buy into science. And I believe he called climate change a hoax.
We'll see. I can't really argue against you but some survival instinct might kick in and right the ship. Although, survival instinct could go in either direction depending on how you look at it. And that's where a split could begin to look more likely.They've had several pretty disastrous nomination processes. This certainly continues that trend. And when they decide that they have to chance, the party's voters just drag them back into the mud. I can't see any reason to believe that they'll be able to do better in the future. Maybe having a president of a slightly different shade will tone down some of the worst elements, but I wouldn't count on it.
I don't vote based on relevance. But yes, if either party splits then it would create huge challenges to winning anything.If they split, they'll just become more irrelevant. You won't want to vote for them if that happens. The Democrats, I think, are more likely to split, but I'd say that's quite a few cycles out. And that's a huge speculation, contingent on other huge speculations. But you're not likely to end up with more than two viable choices.
I was just spouting about having more options. I'd be thrilled if the existing parties got more attention. But the media and the government (why would they, being run by the competition) do nothing. The people don't force it either.
Do you think more than 2 viable options is unlikely because of the system of gov't we have or of how people vote?