The GOP Mess

[_Brackite]

Unfortunately, The Republican Party is in a pretty big Mess now.

From The Huffington Post:


The GOP Mess

...

The mess the Republicans have got themselves into leaves them facing a likely landslide defeat regardless of whom they nominate for president. So while television, the press and party leaders focus on whether Donald Trump, Ted Cruz or a Sir Galahad to be named later emerges as their candidate, there is a greater, related question lurking. Does about the Republican Party have a future? Or is the Party founded in 1856 no longer Grand, just Old, falling apart, on its way to dissolution?

In its 2016 campaign, the G.O.P. is squandering the political advantages of the recent tradition of changing parties in the White House after eight years and two seriously flawed Democratic contenders. As a result Republicans no longer have a best course of action. Between now and the July convention in Cleveland — a city that suitably once boasted a flammable mayor and a flammable river — they can only choose the least worst course of action. It is months and years too late for a best course, only a least worst.

Consider the three Republican choices for 2016:

First, the easy, short-term way out: Nominate Trump, grit your teeth and say “the people have spoken” because he will have won the most votes. Have the Republican National Committee work hard on get out the vote efforts.

The upside is avoiding the Cleveland “riot” Trump cheerfully predicted. Nominating him might entice some of his supporters into lasting loyalty to the Republican Party, if there is one. Focusing party resources and Koch Brothers money on other races just might save the Senate majority. But remember, embattled candidates like Ohio’s Senator Rob Portman have to decide whether endorsing Trump or staying silent will cost them more of the votes they don’t have to spare.

The downside starts with a 2016 defeat of Goldwater/McGovern dimensions. Nominating the man who opened his campaign by labeling Mexican immigrants as “rapists” would etch in stone the party’s current image as anti-Latino, scorning the fastest growing demographic in the electorate. Trump’s misogyny would intensify the party’s long-standing problems with women voters. With some polls suggesting that a third of Republicans would not vote for him, the stay-at-home contingent will defeat Governors, Senators and Representatives. The damage would be worst in swing states or districts where office-holders don’t always regard “compromise” as a profanity. But this could well be a “wave” election (like 1994 for Republicans) that would defeat hard-line conservatives in “safe” seats.

Finally, for many Republicans who joined the party of Lincoln, there would be the shame of having their party nominate someone palpably unfit for the presidency, someone with a substantial racist element in his core of support.

Second, throw everything possible behind Cruz, and however close he can get by himself, then beg, buy or steal enough delegates to get him a majority. Not as easy to do as some commentators assume, but possible.

The advantages of choice two are that it eliminates Trump and arguably legitimates the nominee because Cruz will have won on the rules by ultimately getting the most delegates, being shrewd enough to steal some from Trump. After all, having fewer primary votes did not stop Gerald Ford from defeating Ronald Reagan in 1976. Stealing delegates is unseemly but traditional (see Eisenhower-Taft 1952). Cruz does have a base within the party, the ideological purists. Cruz has adopted every far-right position to be found, while Trump has not adopted them all. In a calmer year, a bad defeat for Cruz might have usefully disproved the right’s usual excuse for GOP defeats, that the candidate lost because he was not conservative enough to bring their supposed conservative majority to the polls. But the Trump intervention offers the right a fresh excuse for failure.

But choice two does have disadvantages. The first risk is the “riot” at the convention that Trump has cheerfully predicted/threatened (and which he might be unable to prevent if he wanted). This happens if Trump is denied for anyone. Cruz would almost certainly suffer a defeat about as bad as Trump’s, with equivalent collateral damage across the party as thousands of moderates and Trump loyalists stayed home. The depth of Cruz’ potential defeat is not yet obvious because he and his views are not as well-known as Trump’s. But they will be. Either Democrat would exploit that record. Shutting down the government is not widely considered a qualification to run it, and hard right policy on issues like abortion and same sex marriage has no relation to twenty-first century national opinion.

The third choice is Sir Galahad, the “unity” candidate, his identity still concealed behind his helmet. It is almost certainly too late. But exhaustion after several inconclusive ballots where Trump lost votes but Cruz still could not reach a majority might, just barely, make the quest for an alternative conceivable. There are mainstream Republicans who hope that at that point Trump and Cruz delegates would start thinking about finding an electable candidate. Some of them think John Kasich, despite being by convention time still a distant third in delegates, is Galahad. Kasich has certainly volunteered for the quest. The punditocracy’s choice has been Paul Ryan. Even if you dismiss the Speaker’s rejection of the very idea, why would he want to antagonize those very conservative House Republicans who made John Boehner’s life miserable and already suspect Ryan of believing in — can you imagine? — making deals. Or the party might settle on a 2016 loser who at least tried, a wannabe with no political future to risk any more, like Ben Carson or Chris Christie. And Mitt Romney isn’t busy.

The pros of choice three: Rejecting two implausible presidents. Maybe, just maybe, avoid a landslide that sweeps many other Republicans to defeat, too. Unlike Cruz and Trump, with their own deficits of charm, Galahad might be able to exploit the electorate’s persistent dislike of Hillary Clinton. In a more modest defeat, the party might be making a statement about what it stands for, or at least what it rejects. That could — just possibly — shake up party’s thinking that leads sensible people (Jeb Bush, for example, on immigration, or most senators on Merrick Garland’s Supreme Court nomination) pandering to the right.

The cons: The risk of landslide defeat remains still very strong. Trouble at the convention would likely be even worse since Cruz backers could join Trump’s in resentment at being cheated. Then what would get them to vote in November? If they don’t, down-ballot losses would be devastating. Trump would surely make things worse by attacking threatened Republican candidates whom he considered part of the conspiracy that chose Galahad. This approach would also fix on the Republican brand an indelible label of backroom deals that infuriates backers of Trump (and of Bernie Sanders, too). If it does not win the White House, and perhaps even if somehow it does, this maneuver would drive the final wedge between the establishment and the hard right.


It is not good for the Republican Party to be in this situation since Hillary (who will likely be the 2016 Democratic Nominee) will not be even half as good as a Presidential Candidate as Obama was. If GOP Primary voters ended up going with Kasich and/or Rubio instead of Cruz and Trump, the chances of the Republicans winning back the Presidency would be pretty good about now.
At this point, I will state that there is about an 80% that the next President will be a Democrat (most likely Hillary), and about an 85% that the Democrats will take back control of the Senate. Having Cruz or especially Trump as the 2016 GOP Nominee will very likely not be that good for a lot of the Incumbent Republican Senators running for re-election this year.

http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/ari ... er-8209913

[_Quasimodo]

I'm starting to wonder if the GOP is going to die from self inflicted wounds. I think the chance of two much less powerful conservative parties emerging is looking high.

[_subgenius]

A rather myopic view of current events, but expected from Huff.
An implosion is most often not a precursor to solely a demise but also to an emergence.

And anyone paying attention sees the same discord among democrats. Albeit less theatrical.

[_MeDotOrg]

An implosion is most often not a precursor to solely a demise but also to an emergence.

So what do you think might be emerging?

[_ajax18]

Whether it's the Republican party or not, I think a coalition could be formed around the central idea of stopping tax increases and lowering taxes. We've become so mired in petty disagreements over social issues that we've lost site of the importance of pushing back against the growing size of government and the constant tide of tax increases and debt increases. Perhaps it's only in the death of the Republican party that we can see a rebirth of freedom from leftist tyranny.

[_Maksutov]

For some reason the media overlooks what a mess the Democrats are.

The frontrunner is aging and unlikeable and reflects policies and events of 20 years ago. The second up is an even older man who thinks that the U.S. can somehow be transformed into a larger version of a small socialist Western European society.

I think both parties are at risk of crashing in some way. I see them as both being out of ideas and only interested in rhetoric and power. Bernie's movement is more populist but I see it as deeply naïve. Cruz and Trump are equally simplistic in their own directions.

If John Kasich were to get the nomination I would vote for him just as an encouragement to the Republicans to turn away from the Tea Party back towards solid, competent adults. They need to stop talking about a fictionalized, canonized Reagan and instead model themselves after Goldwater in his later period.

[_Themis]

Whether it's the Republican party or not, I think a coalition could be formed around the central idea of stopping tax increases and lowering taxes. We've become so mired in petty disagreements over social issues that we've lost site of the importance of pushing back against the growing size of government and the constant tide of tax increases and debt increases. Perhaps it's only in the death of the Republican party that we can see a rebirth of freedom from leftist tyranny.

http://www.businessinsider.com/history-of-tax-rates

[_Kevin Graham]

Brackite, I've been noticing lately that you have been citing Left Wing sources and have been critical of the GOP. Is this a watershed moment for you?

[_EAllusion]

I'm fascinated by how the mere comparison of Trump and Cruz has caused Kasich to develop this reputation as "reasonable moderate" despite holding numerous positions that would've been viewed as highly radical as recently as the early 2000's.

The Democratic Party is in no way, shape, or form as fractured and contentious as the Republican side is currently. There is talk among political scientists of the Republican party imploding - more specifically having its coalition of support radically shifted in such a way that its constitution and aims end up being quite different - but I don't see it at this point. That still seems unlikely. The possibility is exciting for people whose job it is to cover and study such things, though.

The current Republican coalition is dominating almost every level of government. National media coverage's (and to some extent the major parties') monomaniacal focus on the presidency obscures this. All previous examples of a major political party imploding in the United States were preceded by that party losing most of its national power. Perhaps Trump or Cruz would have a nasty negative coattails effect, but the Republicans own such a massive advantage in geography and gerrymandering that it is hard to imagine them losing their deep advantages all over the place. An ordinary landslide for Democrats would probably just bring them to closer to parity.

[_The CCC]

Whether it's the Republican party or not, I think a coalition could be formed around the central idea of stopping tax increases and lowering taxes. We've become so mired in petty disagreements over social issues that we've lost site of the importance of pushing back against the growing size of government and the constant tide of tax increases and debt increases. Perhaps it's only in the death of the Republican party that we can see a rebirth of freedom from leftist tyranny.

Lowest taxes in decades.
SEE http://www.factcheck.org/2012/07/tax-fa ... -30-years/

Fewest federal government employees in decades.
SEE http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2014/11/ ... ince-1966/