Skip to content

History Repeats Itself

Every 52 years, the Republican Party implodes.

The GOP was formed in 1854 and elected Abraham Lincoln in 1860.

52 years later, on 1912, the GOP had a civil war and Teddy Roosevelt split off from the Republicans supporting William Howard Taft, into the Progressive (Bull Moose) party, allowing Democrat Woodrow Wilson to become president.

52 years later, in 1964, the Republicans nominated Barry Goldwater, splintering the party. Many Republicans refused to endorse him; some even backed Lyndon Johnson. The election was a rout, with the worst defeat in modern history.

And now, again 52 years later, it looks like the Republican party is about to implode for the third time. If it does, not only is the presidency in jeopardy, they will probably lose the Senate and maybe even the House.



  1. Jwhat wrote:

    Maybe there is some kind of alien cicadas embedded in their brains….on a 52 year cycle. Could explain a lot of things.

    Saturday, March 12, 2016 at 6:43 am | Permalink
  2. Hassan wrote:

    How come Americans are brainwashed into voting for just two parties? Why can’t we have 3-4 parties in House/Senate. And not just federal but state as well. I really do not understand.

    Saturday, March 12, 2016 at 6:51 am | Permalink
  3. il-08 wrote:

    Third times the charm!

    Saturday, March 12, 2016 at 9:35 am | Permalink
  4. zyvlyn wrote:


    Because typically when you have more than 2 parties, they end up forming coalitions to become a defacto 2 party system anyway. Japanese politics are a prime example of this. There’s the LDP (liberal democratic party, which, ironically, is their version of the republican party) and a whole bunch of other parties which band together to oppose the LDP, which is by far the most powerful party in the country.

    Multiple parties is one of those ideas that sounds great on paper, since the 3rd party you envision will agree with your views perfectly. In practice, it doesn’t work out that way.

    Saturday, March 12, 2016 at 9:35 am | Permalink
  5. Wildwood wrote:

    One can only dream.

    Saturday, March 12, 2016 at 10:00 am | Permalink
  6. just me wrote:

    I feel more hopeful.
    Thank you!

    Saturday, March 12, 2016 at 6:52 pm | Permalink
  7. Iron Knee wrote:

    Actually, there are plenty of countries that have more than two active political parties (i.e., have elected representatives). Germany, Italy, and Australia have six political parties. Brazil has 15 parties, and Israel has 18 parties.

    The problem with the US is mainly our “winner take all” system, which means you have to get a majority of votes in whatever district is voting before you get any representation. There are plenty of solutions to that problem, we just have to implement them, which would require constitutional changes (which the top two parties would be against, of course!)

    Another problem is how we subsidize the large political parties by paying for their primary elections. I like the system in California where they have just one primary (instead of one for each party), and all the candidates (from any and all political parties) run against each other. The top two vote-getters then go on to the general election. That makes it easier for smaller parties to get traction.

    Sunday, March 13, 2016 at 7:16 pm | Permalink
  8. PATRIOTSGT wrote:

    “The GOP was formed in 1854 and elected Abraham Lincoln in 1860.”

    So Republicans ended slavery. Which means Democrats were in favor of it and opposed emancipation?

    “Many Republicans refused to endorse him; some even backed Lyndon Johnson”

    I’d prefer that to blindly voting for the wrong candidate? That seems noble and more like a free thinker to me.

    “allowing Democrat Woodrow Wilson to become president”
    Yeah, lets hope republicans don’t help elect another democrat disaster like that.

    I know you hate all the Republican candidates and you’ll vote on party lines, but I cannot in good conscious vote for HRC and the Clinton dynasty any more then I could vote for another Bush dynasty. It’s a shame that the democratic field is so thin that they can only field 2 choices, neither of which I could vote for. So I’ll just wait, watch and see.

    Monday, March 14, 2016 at 1:39 pm | Permalink
  9. Iron Knee wrote:

    I feel I have to point out that the Democrats fielded more than two candidates. Jim Webb, Martin O’Malley, Lincoln Chaffee, and Lawrence Lessig were all candidates who dropped out because voters didn’t vote for them. And actually (technically), there are currently three Democratic candidates, including Roque De La Fuente. So that’s a total of 7 candidates, which seems like plenty.

    By the way, do you know why Jeb Bush ran for president? Because the Bush family really believes in “no child left behind”. 🙂

    Monday, March 14, 2016 at 2:00 pm | Permalink
  10. PatriotSGT wrote:

    haha, now thats funny, send that one to Fallon

    Tuesday, March 15, 2016 at 4:56 pm | Permalink