"Palin’s Provocative Proposal: A Cost-Benefit Analysis of Conservatives Leaving the GOP" and quotes Palin:
"In other words, we want government to back off I think there will be a
lot of us who start saying ‘GOP, if you abandon us, we have nowhere else to go except to become more independent and not enlisted in a one or the other private majority parties that rule in our nation, either a Democrat or a Republican.’ Remember these are private parties, and you know, no one forces us to be enlisted in either party."
Deace leaves the reader to decide whether it is good idea or not for conservatives to leave the GOP and start a new party. I won't do a summary of Deace's thesis it is here I will simply point out that there is no need for such to-ing and fro-ing. The bottom line is that if the Republican establishment forces the House to force an unacceptable immigration bill then, for better or worse, the die will have been cast and the "Freedom Party" is the only option.
If, as no less than Newt Gingrich advised, LINK and with sound reasoning as one would expect, Hillary Clinton is unbeatable by any GOP candidate in 2016, then that year would be the perfect opportunity to launch a genuine conservative party.
Sarah Palin intimated that such a party might eventuate, she even agreed that "Freedom Party" would be an excellent name for such a vehicle, should the Republican establishment go against the wishes of the rank and file.
It is fair to surmise that Palin was specifically referring to the upcoming vote in the House on the immigration bill that the "Gang of Eight" produced (and 14 Republicans supported) in the Senate, but of course a whole myriad of conservative concerns would also be behind the creation of a new party.
This is not to necessarily agree with Gingrich's doomsday scenario. I have written at the American Thinker LINK that in my opinion a ticket which had both Jeb Bush and Sarah Palin together (or Bush andCruz) in 2016 would have a very strong possibility of winning-even if Hillary was the Dem's nominee. But if that were not the ticket, and as current polling concurs, the GOP faces a seemingly impossible demographic/Electoral College hurdle.
If the Republican Establishment conjures up another ticket in the Dole/McCain/Romney line then millions of conservatives, as they did in 2012, will stay home-what possible incentive would they have to vote for yet another centrist Democrat lite-especially the Perot-ite working class conservatives?
If the Republicans force through an immigration bill unacceptable to the Palin-ite conservatives, and a Christie or Rubio or Bush, sans Palin, is seen to be the "electable" inevitable nominee, then the losing dice would be cast.
If that were the case then, and especially if the polls backed it up, the argument by the GOP against "vote splitting third party wreckers" causing the Republicans to lose, would be out the window.
A genuinely conservative third party movement could grasp what might be an historic opportunity. To run when there was no hope for the regular Republicans, would take away the stigma/turncoat argument whilst setting the framework for full realignment in 2020.
If both the Republicans and the third party lost, as would be expected (although it might actually be possible for the third party to win under special circumstances as I set out previously (LINK) then in 2020 whichever of the two had done best in 2016, and was still the dominant force, would have the right to claim to be the true conservative vehicle.
At that point if Clinton was running for a second term and the economy was in bad shape the new party, should it be the dominant force, would being the position of bringing the first genuinely conservative government since Reagan.
It may be that in the relatively near future that which is most feared, a Clinton victory, might (especially if such a victory was ameliorated by a Republican Congress) be the best thing for the conservatives, and lead to the foundation of a new party in the fastest time with the least spilling of political blood on the right.