Republican Party - On the Eve of a Civil War?

[SimpleDon]

I don't think that a Trump candidacy would tear apart the Republican party. The overriding interests of the various factions of the party are in taking back the presidency to achieve their goals and to even more importantly to maintain what they have achieved over the last half century.

Trump defies all political convention. He creates doubt and the doubt makes the Republicans a bit afraid. But would screwing a Trump who doesn't have enough delegates in Cleveland be worse? I ponder the pt loss in crucial battleground states. Trump has a good deal of new support, people that if they didn't vote, you'd never notice. But a few of them probably do vote, which means a Republican vote that disappears. Does this lead to a 1 pt loss, 3 pt loss for House / Senate candidates?

Worst yet, Donald Trump could very well tell the Convention that screwed him, on national television that he will push his supporters to vote for Hillary as a protest vote. And then he'd get 1/3 of the convention to start chanting "FU, Vote for Hillary".

No one likes uncertainty, which is the main fear with Trump, especially among the Republicans. They have no idea what to expect if he runs or if he doesn't get the nomination (legitimately or illegitimately). Playing with Trump at this point is like playing with nitroglycerin. He has an absurdly sized following that will pretty much do whatever he asks.

Don't take me wrong, Trump is very, very dangerous. I have called him what he is, a fascist. If you have ever wondered how it is that more than a third of the normally quite solid Germans could have voted in 1932 for the man with the small mustache, you are getting an answer, now, in Trump. And yet the German leader wasn't really dangerous and able to consolidate power until the wealthy and the corporations signed on to support him.

 

[Rhea]

Who IS the average Trump supporter?


What has happened to them to make this possible?

This is an interesting article about that..

http://www.vox.com/2016/3/1/11127424/trump-authoritarianism

Last September, a PhD student at the University of Massachusetts Amherst named Matthew MacWilliams realized that his dissertation research might hold the answer to not just one but all three of these mysteries.

MacWilliams studies authoritarianism — not actual dictators, but rather a psychological profile of individual voters that is characterized by a desire for order and a fear of outsiders. People who score high in authoritarianism, when they feel threatened, look for strong leaders who promise to take whatever action necessary to protect them from outsiders and prevent the changes they fear.

So MacWilliams naturally wondered if authoritarianism might correlate with support for Trump.

He polled a large sample of likely voters, looking for correlations between support for Trump and views that align with authoritarianism.

And he found that yes, this seems to be a common thread.

 

[untermensche]

And he found that yes, this seems to be a common thread.

It's as old as humanity.

People looking for what they perceive as a powerful leader that will fix their world with force.

Like Bush II and Reagan I see a lot of foreign initiation of violence under Trump.

And a widening of the rich and the poor.

 

[SimpleDon]

I'm waiting on Trump to quote Obi Wan: "If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful than you can possibly imagine."

The establishment coming out and vehemently opposing Trump is exactly what he wants. It's only going to win him more votes

This.

Yes, of course Trump's main appeal is his status as an outsider. Much of the conservative base is mad because the Republican politicians haven't delivered on their promises. They haven't brought God back into the government, they haven't ushered in the theocracy, the ten commandments as ruling over the constitution. They haven't outlawed abortion and contraception. They haven't balanced the budget. Those people still don't know their place. The government still caters to those people helping them to more rewards than they deserve.

But the establishment won't require Trump to give up his outsider badge, he is going to run against the ultimate insider in Hillary Clinton. They just need him to tone down the crazy so the Republicans can get the 47% of the electorate that they need to retain the House and and the 48% that they need with the correct distribution to claim the presidency, and ultimately the Supreme Court.

It is all doable with Trump. And it may even be easier with him than with either Cruz or Rubio. Yes, liberals can't believe that the Republicans would run and to support someone like Trump. But if anything this makes it more likely that ultimately they will unite behind Trump. If Trump wasn't running we would be saving the same things about Cruz right now. Cruz is only a notch behind Trump on the crazy measuring ruler and Rubio maybe three behind Trump.

 

[Sarpedon]

This whole idea of the republican establishment forming a new party is ludicrous. What will their slogan be, "we lost control of our own party, now vote for us to run the country?" Trump has defeated all comers. Who is left for them to nominate? Romney? He lost when he was the only right wing candidate, what insane opium eater thinks he can win without the support of a solid third of his party (and that is being optimistic)? What's he going to do? Embrace Universal Health Care again and hope he can get the disaffected Sanders voters? Why would he sully his good name in service to such a mad fever dream?

If they change the rules to block Trump, he, with good reason, says they have broken their agreement with him, runs as an independent, and probably sues them for good measure. (and this time he might win, as he actually has a contract, remember the one they 'forced' him to sign?) If they bail to form a third party, they will struggle to find a candidate, and do nothing but sabotage their stranglehold on Congress. The only reasonable thing to do is accept him as their candidate, accept their loss of the presidency, and focus on keeping their congressional control, and hope the rabid fools are satisfied getting their own way for once (I don't think they will be).

 

[SimpleDon]

This is an interesting article about that..

http://www.vox.com/2016/3/1/11127424/trump-authoritarianism

Last September, a PhD student at the University of Massachusetts Amherst named Matthew MacWilliams realized that his dissertation research might hold the answer to not just one but all three of these mysteries.

MacWilliams studies authoritarianism — not actual dictators, but rather a psychological profile of individual voters that is characterized by a desire for order and a fear of outsiders. People who score high in authoritarianism, when they feel threatened, look for strong leaders who promise to take whatever action necessary to protect them from outsiders and prevent the changes they fear.

So MacWilliams naturally wondered if authoritarianism might correlate with support for Trump.

He polled a large sample of likely voters, looking for correlations between support for Trump and views that align with authoritarianism.

And he found that yes, this seems to be a common thread.

Yes, conservatives have a strong tendency to accept authoritarianism.

Ironically, they look for leaders who like Trump aren't conservatives. Trump doesn't operate out of fear, the driving force of conservatives, Rather he operates out of a seemingly inexhaustible well of self-confidence, untempered by his failures, which he blames on others.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The only way at this point, that isn't dirty, is to keep him from winning enough delegates. If he doesn't have half the delegates, they have a way out, though even that could get ugly with Trump saying "write me in on the ballot" (deadline for Indy run will have passed in many states).

The Republicans are really skating on thin ice here though. 1) They can't fight him too much or risk demonizing their own General Election candidate! 2) They may need to form a new party because Trump may have taken over their's. This started at the Presidential ticket. What about the Senate and House in '18? These people not going to exist then? If Trump loses, they'll just blame the establishment for tearing him down.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Supposing it comes to pass, the GOP dumps the Trump. Would a vengeful Trump start a new third party? Could he pull it off?

 

[SimpleDon]

This whole idea of the republican establishment forming a new party is ludicrous. What will their slogan be, "we lost control of our own party, now vote for us to run the country?" Trump has defeated all comers. Who is left for them to nominate? Romney? He lost when he was the only right wing candidate, what insane opium eater thinks he can win without the support of a solid third of his party (and that is being optimistic)? What's he going to do? Embrace Universal Health Care again and hope he can get the disaffected Sanders voters? Why would he sully his good name in service to such a mad fever dream?

If they change the rules to block Trump, he, with good reason, says they have broken their agreement with him, runs as an independent, and probably sues them for good measure. (and this time he might win, as he actually has a contract, remember the one they 'forced' him to sign?) If they bail to form a third party, they will struggle to find a candidate, and do nothing but sabotage their stranglehold on Congress. The only reasonable thing to do is accept him as their candidate, accept their loss of the presidency, and focus on keeping their congressional control, and hope the rabid fools are satisfied getting their own way for once (I don't think they will be).

Without a doubt the Republican establishment would be much happier if some more reliable person would run. But their best course right now would be to try to coop Trump. They have the ultimate prize to offer to Trump, billions of dollars of support. Unsurprisingly both the establishment and Trump seriously overvalue the impact of money on the voters.

 

[SimpleDon]

Where are our resident conservatives? I value their opinions on this above all others, including my own. Do they want another candidate to run even if it might mean temporarily tearing the decades old conservative coalition apart and facing a third party run?

I wasn't trying to monopolize the thread. I just couldn't get it together to post a single response. I kept coming up with new points. Usually just after I hit "Submit."

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Supposing it comes to pass, the GOP dumps the Trump. Would a vengeful Trump start a new third party? Could he pull it off?

Many troubles.

1) He has to start before the convention to even have a prayer. Major Red states Georgia and Texas have registration deadlines before the Republican Convention. Other big states like Illinois and Florida are also before the convention, a total of 159 electoral votes, including many red states that have to be won by the Republican / Conservative / Insane candidate in order to have a chance at winning pre-date the Convention.

2) Close states. Trump isn't taking many Democrat votes, which means pilfering Republican votes. I believe there were 72 EV's among Red States that were won by 10% or less. And unless Trump wins a blue state (any chance in hell?), there is no unimportant red state.

3) Electoral college verses popular vote in a state. The electoral college doesn't care if you won a state with 25% of the vote. It only cares if you have a majority of the electoral votes. Trump would split the R's much more than the D's. D's could win a bigger Electoral College outcome than '08.

Craziest possible outcome, not likely but craziest. Split Republican/3rd party Trump aggregate wins enough states to win election, however, none of the three candidates have a majority, themselves. Republican legislatures across the country where Trump won the state vote to send Republican delegates to DC instead of Trump delegates (yeah... our Constitution allows this shit). It'd be Tilden v Rutherford to the 911th power. Though that may not be necessary because the House would vote if there isn't a majority, which favors the Republicans anyway.

 

[Horatio Parker]

This whole idea of the republican establishment forming a new party is ludicrous. What will their slogan be, "we lost control of our own party, now vote for us to run the country?" Trump has defeated all comers. Who is left for them to nominate? Romney? He lost when he was the only right wing candidate, what insane opium eater thinks he can win without the support of a solid third of his party (and that is being optimistic)? What's he going to do? Embrace Universal Health Care again and hope he can get the disaffected Sanders voters? Why would he sully his good name in service to such a mad fever dream?

If they change the rules to block Trump, he, with good reason, says they have broken their agreement with him, runs as an independent, and probably sues them for good measure. (and this time he might win, as he actually has a contract, remember the one they 'forced' him to sign?) If they bail to form a third party, they will struggle to find a candidate, and do nothing but sabotage their stranglehold on Congress. The only reasonable thing to do is accept him as their candidate, accept their loss of the presidency, and focus on keeping their congressional control, and hope the rabid fools are satisfied getting their own way for once (I don't think they will be).

Without a doubt the Republican establishment would be much happier if some more reliable person would run. But their best course right now would be to try to coop Trump. They have the ultimate prize to offer to Trump, billions of dollars of support. Unsurprisingly both the establishment and Trump seriously overvalue the impact of money on the voters.

Trump has said he'll run as a third party candidate if he doesn't get the nomination.

I wonder if the establishment doesn't feel more comfortable with HRC, even if they can't come out and say so. She's beholden to her contributors, whereas Trump isn't beholden to anyone. So they know what they're getting.

 

[Sarpedon]

Recent elections have shown that the republicans are defending states that once were solidly republican, rather than taking the fight to traditionally blue states. Some people wonder if Trump could take the fight to the North east, but that seems as wrong as thinking Hilary could take it to the deep south. About half of the states that Trump lost in the primary are considered 'battleground states' i.e Iowa and Virginia.

 

[SimpleDon]

Without a doubt the Republican establishment would be much happier if some more reliable person would run. But their best course right now would be to try to coop Trump. They have the ultimate prize to offer to Trump, billions of dollars of support. Unsurprisingly both the establishment and Trump seriously overvalue the impact of money on the voters.

Trump has said he'll run as a third party candidate if he doesn't get the nomination.

I wonder if the establishment doesn't feel more comfortable with HRC, even if they can't come out and say so. She's beholden to her contributors, whereas Trump isn't beholden to anyone. So they know what they're getting.

It might be but I doubt it. The establishment wants to protect the income inequality that has built up over the years of conservative rule and Democrats adopting conservative positions, like Clinton I with welfare reform and deregulation and Obama with ObamaCare based on the free market principle that the private sector always does it better, in spite of the realities of it.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Trump is running his campaign like a business venture. He's selling himself as a product. What he isn't doing is trying to be nice to the competition. To him it's a very business-like "fuck the competition." And he obviously doesn't have a platform or plan of any kind wrt governing if elected, because all he's trying to do is get himself elected. That's as far as his plan goes. His campaign slogan should be, "Buy Me. Buy a Winner," or something like that. He's just taking advantage of the great stupid that exists in the Republican Party, and I can't bring myself to get too excited about that. The core of what constitutes the Republican Party never gave a shit about the "Republican Party" anyway.

The best thing to come out of all this would be to permanently fracture the two-only-party system that exists in the U.S. That would be a good thing indeed.

 

[SimpleDon]

Recent elections have shown that the republicans are defending states that once were solidly republican, rather than taking the fight to traditionally blue states. Some people wonder if Trump could take the fight to the North east, but that seems as wrong as thinking Hilary could take it to the deep south. About half of the states that Trump lost in the primary are considered 'battleground states' i.e Iowa and Virginia.

That is true but I don't think that it changes the calculus of the situation, that a third party run guarantees the loss of the presidency, the Supreme Court and even maybe the US Senate. At least cooping Trump and calming him down gives them a chance to run the table, leaving the Democrats with only the filibuster in the US Senate to avoid the clean sweep.

 

[untermensche]

Trump is running his campaign like a business venture. He's selling himself as a product. What he isn't doing is trying to be nice to the competition. To him it's a very business-like "fuck the competition." And he obviously doesn't have a platform or plan of any kind wrt governing if elected, because all he's trying to do is get himself elected. That's as far as his plan goes. His campaign slogan should be, "Buy Me. Buy a Winner," or something like that. He's just taking advantage of the great stupid that exists in the Republican Party, and I can't bring myself to get too excited about that. The core of what constitutes the Republican Party never gave a shit about the "Republican Party" anyway.

The best thing to come out of all this would be to permanently fracture the two-only-party system that exists in the U.S. That would be a good thing indeed.

It would only be good if a party that didn't represent the interests of large corporations and billionaires emerged.

All Trump represents is cutting out the middle man to get the world the billionaires desire.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Trump is running his campaign like a business venture. He's selling himself as a product. What he isn't doing is trying to be nice to the competition. To him it's a very business-like "fuck the competition." And he obviously doesn't have a platform or plan of any kind wrt governing if elected, because all he's trying to do is get himself elected. That's as far as his plan goes. His campaign slogan should be, "Buy Me. Buy a Winner," or something like that. He's just taking advantage of the great stupid that exists in the Republican Party, and I can't bring myself to get too excited about that. The core of what constitutes the Republican Party never gave a shit about the "Republican Party" anyway.

The best thing to come out of all this would be to permanently fracture the two-only-party system that exists in the U.S. That would be a good thing indeed.

It would only be good if a party that didn't represent the interests of large corporations and billionaires emerged.

All Trump represents is cutting out the middle man to get the world the billionaires desire.

Every politician does it for the money. Nothing new there.

I don't think Einstein would vote for Trump. Neither will I. I'm certainly no Einstein, and nor am I a flag waving racist. Most republicans are racist but keep their flags hidden.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I have one question for each of the remaining political candidates that are not Trump: If Trump wins the nomination, will you support him over Hillary Clinton / Bernie Sanders? Back in that first debate they all gave their vow to support the eventual nominee, but will they keep that promise? They are now saying everything they can to destroy Trump, and much of it can be used by Hillary/Bernie later on. He is being called out by Romney now. What do they do if he wins the nomination? Do they try to walk all of this back? Or do they stick by it and throw the election?

 

[untermensche]

It would only be good if a party that didn't represent the interests of large corporations and billionaires emerged.

All Trump represents is cutting out the middle man to get the world the billionaires desire.

Every politician does it for the money. Nothing new there.

I don't think Einstein would vote for Trump. Neither will I. I'm certainly no Einstein, and nor am I a flag waving racist. Most republicans are racist but keep their flags hidden.

Teddy Roosevelt, while an imperialist in foreign policy, understood that the power of money was corrupt and brought it somewhat in line. It is one of the reasons he lost when he ran for president.

Not all politicians do it for the money.

Sanders is not there because he is either a billionaire or has a billionaire backing him.

But all the rest are.