Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 05-06-2019, 12:31 PM
Boycott is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 26

What will the Republican Party be like post-Trump?


A recent poll shows ~90% of Republicans approve the job Trump has done. He has strong - somewhat sycophantic - support among Congressional Republicans. People like Lindsey Graham, Ted Cruz and Rand Paul who ridiculed him during the primaries of the 2016 election are now staunch defenders of his presidency and the president himself.

The Republican Party is the Party of Trump. But for how long?

The youth turn-out in 2018 helped the Democrats. Coupled with Democrats sweeping offices in states like Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan which twice went for Obama but switched to Trump in 2016, plus Red states like Texas and Georgia being a lot closer than usual, signs from the mid-terms could signal big trouble for Trump.

Suppose next year the Democrats regain the White House, the Senate and retain the House...that's quite a message from the American people. To boot out the sitting president up for re-election has just happened twice since Hoover. And if there is no wall, no healthcare reform, no immigration reform, will there be a reckoning within the party that a President Cruz will have done exactly the same things (tax cuts, conservative judiciary appointments, reducing regulations, repeal individual mandate of Obamacare) without all the bickering and polarisation? And Trump gets treated as an abberation?

The flipside is the economic numbers are very good and that can carry him for another four years. The recession some predicted hasn't arrived. And if he gets four more years to fulfill his campaign promises such as the wall will Trump be put on a pedastal for years to come like Ronald Reagan? A conservative deity who in twenty years time will be brought up in presidential debates as candidates try to compare themselves to, as they have done with Reagan for the last twenty years.
  #2  
Old 05-06-2019, 12:38 PM
Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 14,271
The Republican Party is an exceptionally malleable party. They go right along with whomever happens to be at the helm at the time. Prior to Reagan and George W. Bush, Republicans were a party of fiscal conservatism (or at least claimed to be,) yet they didn't blink when Reagan and Bush ran up large deficit spending.

So to answer the OP, once Trump leaves, Republicans will instantly be molded into.....whomever the successor happens to be. And that'll be their new Trump.

However.....there may very well be someone like Tom Cotton who will take power, who will be like Trump, except even tougher than Trump and more serious than Trump. He'll release his tax returns, no problem, and probably have a lot less corruption if president, but would really out-Trump Trump on things like the border wall and deportations.
  #3  
Old 05-06-2019, 01:27 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 33,897
It's a great question, and I don't know the answer. We'll find out a lot more in the next 2 to 6 years, depending on how elections go.
  #4  
Old 05-06-2019, 02:47 PM
Max S. is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 798
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boycott View Post
A recent poll shows ~90% of Republicans approve the job Trump has done.
Just curious, what poll?

I'm a Republican and I don't approve of many things that went down in the executive branch since '16. Take the tax bill, for instance. Or the terribly unbalanced budget. Or his handle on Korea, Russia, and the Middle East. I mean, objectively the only thing he's done "right" is successfully appoint two supreme court justices. But that was all McConnell, and it wasn't actually done right.

~Max
  #5  
Old 05-06-2019, 03:38 PM
Boycott is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
Just curious, what poll?

I'm a Republican and I don't approve of many things that went down in the executive branch since '16. Take the tax bill, for instance. Or the terribly unbalanced budget. Or his handle on Korea, Russia, and the Middle East. I mean, objectively the only thing he's done "right" is successfully appoint two supreme court justices. But that was all McConnell, and it wasn't actually done right.

~Max
Scroll down a bit on this page to Job Approval by Party Identification

https://news.gallup.com/poll/203198/...ald-trump.aspx
  #6  
Old 05-06-2019, 04:02 PM
Kent Clark's Avatar
Kent Clark is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 25,897
If Trump loses in 2020 Republicans will suck it up in 2024 and either run the biggest damn American Hero they can find, or some exciting youngish, clean-cut, Paul Ryan type.

However, if Trump completes two entire terms (and the Democrats need a really good candidate in 2020, not just a not-Trump,) the Republican coalition of whackos, pro-life religious conservatives, disaffected blue-collar workers, and nice suburban folks worried about taxes will be at each other's throats with their own ideas of what the One True Successor will be.
  #7  
Old 05-06-2019, 04:04 PM
Max S. is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 798

The gap widens


Quote:
Originally Posted by Boycott View Post
Scroll down a bit on this page to Job Approval by Party Identification

https://news.gallup.com/poll/203198/...ald-trump.aspx
So it goes...

But this seems to be a continuation of the trend. Combine this poll's most recent numbers with these numbers from previous Gallup polls[1]:

Year 4 approval ratings by party affiliation
President ....: R% / D% / gap
Trump* .......: 91% / 12% / 79
Obama ........: 10% / 86% / 76
G.W. Bush ....: 91% / 15% / 76
Clinton ......: 24% / 85% / 61
G.H.W. Bush ..: 71% / 17% / 54
Reagan .......: 89% / 29% / 60
Carter .......: 24% / 53% / 29
Nixon ........: 85% / 41% / 44

*Trump's numbers from the poll linked upthread.

~Max

[1] Jones, J. (2013). Obama's Fourth Year in Office Ties as Most Polarized Ever. Gallup. Retrieved from https://news.gallup.com/poll/160097/...ized-ever.aspx

Last edited by Max S.; 05-06-2019 at 04:05 PM.
  #8  
Old 05-06-2019, 04:12 PM
enipla is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Colorado Rockies.
Posts: 14,221
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
So it goes...

But this seems to be a continuation of the trend. Combine this poll's most recent numbers with these numbers from previous Gallup polls[1]:

Year 4 approval ratings by party affiliation
President ....: R% / D% / gap
Trump* .......: 91% / 12% / 79
Obama ........: 10% / 86% / 76
G.W. Bush ....: 91% / 15% / 76
Clinton ......: 24% / 85% / 61
G.H.W. Bush ..: 71% / 17% / 54
Reagan .......: 89% / 29% / 60
Carter .......: 24% / 53% / 29
Nixon ........: 85% / 41% / 44

*Trump's numbers from the poll linked upthread.

~Max

[1] Jones, J. (2013). Obama's Fourth Year in Office Ties as Most Polarized Ever. Gallup. Retrieved from https://news.gallup.com/poll/160097/...ized-ever.aspx
Disturbing that 12% of Democrats approve of Trump. Single issue voters? What could the issue be?
__________________
I don't live in the middle of nowhere, but I can see it from here.
  #9  
Old 05-06-2019, 04:25 PM
Joey P is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Milwaukee, WI
Posts: 28,598
As stated earlier, I think many of those people are simply putting their support into their party's president. If Paul Ryan had won, those people would still stand behind him. If the next president is republican, I think it'll be business as usual for them.
Look at how strongly those people (or at least Lindsey Graham) defended Brett Kavanaugh when, even ignoring the accusations, all of the words that came out of his mouth and his body language said that he wasn't fit for the job....but he was a republican and they stuck with him.
  #10  
Old 05-06-2019, 04:29 PM
Fiveyearlurker is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 6,518
I think Trump proves that affiliation to the Republican party has little to do with policy. The did an about face on every imaginable issue; family values, low taxes, paying off the deficit, tariffs. Everything.

It is the party of grievances and pointing the fingers at others. As long as the 2020 candidate does that, whether his policies bare any resemblance to Trump's or Reagan's matters not a whit.
  #11  
Old 05-06-2019, 04:30 PM
Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 14,271
Quote:
Originally Posted by enipla View Post
Disturbing that 12% of Democrats approve of Trump. Single issue voters? What could the issue be?
There were a considerable number of Obama voters who went Trump in 2016. This might be them. Or perhaps the conservative Joe-Manchin-Democrat type, maybe rural Rust Belt or labor-union democrats.
  #12  
Old 05-06-2019, 04:34 PM
elucidator is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 59,838
Donations will be measured relative to shells, beads and bear claws.
  #13  
Old 05-06-2019, 04:38 PM
Max S. is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 798
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiveyearlurker View Post
I think Trump proves that affiliation to the Republican party has little to do with policy. The did an about face on every imaginable issue; family values, low taxes, paying off the deficit, tariffs. Everything.

It is the party of grievances and pointing the fingers at others. As long as the 2020 candidate does that, whether his policies bare any resemblance to Trump's or Reagan's matters not a whit.
It has more to do with my parent's affiliation, local political skew, and the closed primaries in my state. That's not to say I agree with all of the major Democratic positions either.

~Max
  #14  
Old 05-06-2019, 04:38 PM
The Other Waldo Pepper is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 16,426
Quote:
Originally Posted by kunilou View Post
If Trump loses in 2020 Republicans will suck it up in 2024 and either run the biggest damn American Hero they can find, or some exciting youngish, clean-cut, Paul Ryan type.

However, if Trump completes two entire terms (and the Democrats need a really good candidate in 2020, not just a not-Trump,) the Republican coalition of whackos, pro-life religious conservatives, disaffected blue-collar workers, and nice suburban folks worried about taxes will be at each other's throats with their own ideas of what the One True Successor will be.
Canít they just go with Ivanka?
  #15  
Old 05-06-2019, 04:49 PM
Kent Clark's Avatar
Kent Clark is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 25,897
Quote:
Originally Posted by enipla View Post
Disturbing that 12% of Democrats approve of Trump. Single issue voters? What could the issue be?
Pro-life Democrats. Yes, they still exist. Suburban Catholics like to call themselves "Democrats."
  #16  
Old 05-06-2019, 05:31 PM
Two Many Cats is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Chicago
Posts: 4,638
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
There were a considerable number of Obama voters who went Trump in 2016. This might be them. Or perhaps the conservative Joe-Manchin-Democrat type, maybe rural Rust Belt or labor-union democrats.
Or misogynists.
  #17  
Old 05-06-2019, 05:41 PM
not what you'd expect is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 4,720
Or Russian maybe.
  #18  
Old 05-06-2019, 05:49 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,616
Quote:
Originally Posted by enipla View Post
Disturbing that 12% of Democrats approve of Trump. Single issue voters? What could the issue be?
It's the economy, at least that'd be my guess.
  #19  
Old 05-06-2019, 05:54 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,616
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper View Post
Canít they just go with Ivanka?
+1 to this. I'm not really into identity politics, but it would be immensely entertaining if the first female president were a Republican.
  #20  
Old 05-06-2019, 06:09 PM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 83,273
Those 12% of "Democrats" who approve of Trump are probably folks who've voted R for every race for every position for the past 30 years, but dammit, they're still Democrats.

And yes, there are still pro-life Democrats. What's changed lately is that there are no longer any pro-life Republicans. Haven't been, since at least 2009.
  #21  
Old 05-06-2019, 06:24 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,616
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
... What's changed lately is that there are no longer any pro-life Republicans. Haven't been, since at least 2009.
What? Did you maybe mean pro-choice Republicans? (which would still be wrong, but perhaps a more understandable error)

Quote:
And the public, unlike political elites, is not completely divided along party lines on this issue. There is a large bloc of Republicans who support abortion rights. There is a smaller, but still sizable, group of Democrats who oppose abortion rights.
source

And here, 61% of Republicans identify as pro-life
  #22  
Old 05-06-2019, 07:12 PM
LoneRhino is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 135
If history is a guide then if Trump loses in 2020 Republicans will declare that Trump wasn't a "real" conservative and that they need to move further to the right.
  #23  
Old 05-06-2019, 07:28 PM
Wesley Clark is offline
2018 Midterm Prediction Winner
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 21,861
Sadly it'll be the same or worse. An anti-intellectual, anti-education party of racial resentment and proto-fascist politics.

No matter how evil or corrupt the GOP gets, they are guaranteed 60 million votes in a presidential election. The GOP know this (that their voters won't punish them for evil or criminal behavior) and will go overboard in this behavior now.
__________________
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to sparkle motion
  #24  
Old 05-07-2019, 03:32 AM
Qin Shi Huangdi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: California
Posts: 9,092
It will slide further into right-wing populism, solidifying its gains among white working-class voters. If they are not smart, they will be a permanent minority party with a ceiling of perhaps 45% of the vote but if they are smart they will solidify into an economically centrist (mildly protectionist, welfare chauvinist, anti-credentialist, anti-monopolist) and culturally moderately conservative party (civic nationalist, pro-life, pro-gun) that would be in a position to win over nonwhite voters.
__________________
Clinton/Schweitzer '16
  #25  
Old 05-07-2019, 04:20 AM
Smapti is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Olympia, WA
Posts: 15,922

What will the Republican Party be like post-Trump?


Illegal, much like the Nazi Party is in Germany today, one should hope.
  #26  
Old 05-07-2019, 06:14 AM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,281
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boycott View Post
A recent poll shows ~90% of Republicans approve the job Trump has done. He has strong - somewhat sycophantic - support among Congressional Republicans. People like Lindsey Graham, Ted Cruz and Rand Paul who ridiculed him during the primaries of the 2016 election are now staunch defenders of his presidency and the president himself.

The Republican Party is the Party of Trump. But for how long?
So it's basically trivial at this point to point out that the republican party is completely divorced from reality. Everyone knows, no real need to go back over it. And it largely comes down to the right-wing media sphere encouraging that divorce with constant lies, smear campaigns, et cetera.

Have those dynamics become better or worse in the past 2 years?

Yeah, that's what I thought.

There's no moderating influence on the republican side. There's no voice (at least, not with any influence) saying, "Hey, wait, this isn't okay". Rank and file republicans have about a 90% agreement rate with Donald Trump - given how he's been so far, how bad do you think things have to get for that to drop significantly? And if things do get worse, why wouldn't the right-wing filter bubble immediately blame it on the democrats?

Despite what Joe Biden might say, Trump is not some anomaly. He's the culmination of modern right-wing grift. The party is well and truly run by the folks on the far right. Even so-called "moderate" republicans have to either step in line with Hannity, Limbaugh, and co, or lose power and influence. There's nobody willing and able to check those influences. Hell, the president recently stood up for an Infowars editor and a bunch of white nationalists on twitter - where's the pushback from republicans who are, if not moderate, then at least fucking sane? There is none, because the media landscape ensures that if they stand up to the far right, they will get pummeled.

The only thing that will set this right, short of Breitbart and co. ceasing to exist, is if the republicans take such an impossible beating in the next election that it causes the heads at Fox News to say, "whoa, time to tune things down a bit and rein in our worst excesses". Except that they have a far better line to take should that happen, a line they've been pushing for god knows how long: "Voter Fraud". Hell, now we have Nancy Pelosi talking about how she's concerned that Trump will contest the election results if he loses. And why wouldn't the right-wing media go right along with it, just like they've gone right along with every other insane, dangerous, stupid thing he's said in the last 3 years?

This doesn't get better without getting a whole lot worse. Unless the republican party is completely crushed, unless the political landscape shifts so dramatically that "I read Breitbart" becomes widely recognized as akin to "I read the Daily Stormer", there's no incentive to stop. We are sleepwalking towards a fascist dictatorship.

Like, imagine if Trump loses in 2020, and senate republicans, for whatever reason, refuse to go along with him disputing the election results (given Mitch McConnell's consistent norm-breaking behavior over the past decade and his caucus's willingness to go along with it, I find this unlikely). What happens in 2024? Is there any reason to believe the far right will tone it down? That we'll see less insane conspiracy theories attacking the legitimacy of our institutions? That they'll be less willing to blatantly lie about anything and everything? These conditions that led to Trump have no real reason to improve, so they won't.

But here's the scary part. Trump is currently a drag on his party. But that largely comes down to him being grossly incompetent, stupid, self-destructive, obviously corrupt, et cetera et cetera et cetera. What if, in 2024, the person who runs shares Trump's authoritarian tendencies, but, just to name one obvious example, isn't so stupidly self-destructive that he'd fire the head of the FBI that's currently investigating him for ties to Russia, then admit on national television that he fired the head of the FBI because of his handling of an investigation into him. Imagine if, instead of a scandal-prone man who cheated on his pregnant wife with a porn star then paid said porn star to keep quiet, we had just... someone who wasn't that.

We're fucked.
  #27  
Old 05-07-2019, 06:39 AM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 9,636
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
So it's basically trivial at this point to point out that the republican party is completely divorced from reality. Everyone knows, no real need to go back over it. And it largely comes down to the right-wing media sphere encouraging that divorce with constant lies, smear campaigns, et cetera.

Have those dynamics become better or worse in the past 2 years?

Yeah, that's what I thought.

There's no moderating influence on the republican side. There's no voice (at least, not with any influence) saying, "Hey, wait, this isn't okay". Rank and file republicans have about a 90% agreement rate with Donald Trump - given how he's been so far, how bad do you think things have to get for that to drop significantly? And if things do get worse, why wouldn't the right-wing filter bubble immediately blame it on the democrats?

Despite what Joe Biden might say, Trump is not some anomaly. He's the culmination of modern right-wing grift. The party is well and truly run by the folks on the far right. Even so-called "moderate" republicans have to either step in line with Hannity, Limbaugh, and co, or lose power and influence. There's nobody willing and able to check those influences. Hell, the president recently stood up for an Infowars editor and a bunch of white nationalists on twitter - where's the pushback from republicans who are, if not moderate, then at least fucking sane? There is none, because the media landscape ensures that if they stand up to the far right, they will get pummeled.

The only thing that will set this right, short of Breitbart and co. ceasing to exist, is if the republicans take such an impossible beating in the next election that it causes the heads at Fox News to say, "whoa, time to tune things down a bit and rein in our worst excesses". Except that they have a far better line to take should that happen, a line they've been pushing for god knows how long: "Voter Fraud". Hell, now we have Nancy Pelosi talking about how she's concerned that Trump will contest the election results if he loses. And why wouldn't the right-wing media go right along with it, just like they've gone right along with every other insane, dangerous, stupid thing he's said in the last 3 years?

This doesn't get better without getting a whole lot worse. Unless the republican party is completely crushed, unless the political landscape shifts so dramatically that "I read Breitbart" becomes widely recognized as akin to "I read the Daily Stormer", there's no incentive to stop. We are sleepwalking towards a fascist dictatorship.

Like, imagine if Trump loses in 2020, and senate republicans, for whatever reason, refuse to go along with him disputing the election results (given Mitch McConnell's consistent norm-breaking behavior over the past decade and his caucus's willingness to go along with it, I find this unlikely). What happens in 2024? Is there any reason to believe the far right will tone it down? That we'll see less insane conspiracy theories attacking the legitimacy of our institutions? That they'll be less willing to blatantly lie about anything and everything? These conditions that led to Trump have no real reason to improve, so they won't.

But here's the scary part. Trump is currently a drag on his party. But that largely comes down to him being grossly incompetent, stupid, self-destructive, obviously corrupt, et cetera et cetera et cetera. What if, in 2024, the person who runs shares Trump's authoritarian tendencies, but, just to name one obvious example, isn't so stupidly self-destructive that he'd fire the head of the FBI that's currently investigating him for ties to Russia, then admit on national television that he fired the head of the FBI because of his handling of an investigation into him. Imagine if, instead of a scandal-prone man who cheated on his pregnant wife with a porn star then paid said porn star to keep quiet, we had just... someone who wasn't that.

We're fucked.
I think people are making an incorrect association between perceived competence and the ability to destroy democracy. Most authoritarians are incompetent when it comes to governing a country in ways that produce benefit for the masses; what they're competent at is in gaining power, and while Trump might not know shit about the Constitution, economics, history, and foreign policy, he knows a lot about power. He couldn't have been this successful at conning people for so long if he didn't know something about the human animal and its frailties.
  #28  
Old 05-07-2019, 07:37 AM
BobLibDem is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Home 07 NCAA HockeyChamps
Posts: 21,234
For this exercise, I assume that the Democrats win big in 2020, getting the White House, Senate, and House. Based on that assumption:

Republicans from 2021-2024 are leaderless. The base still worships the ground that DJT walks on. He continues his tweetstorms and blames the party for not supporting him enough and not being worthy of his leadership. Afraid to offend him, Republicans up for election continue to sing his praises and beg for his endorsement. The racist right wing white nationalists take complete control of the party, having the solid support of 30% of the population but are loathed by everyone else. They continue to shrink in numbers in Congress but dominate in some states. In 2024 they find someone just as repulsive as Donald to nominate and he gets his ass handed to him by Vice President Kamala Harris, who runs because President Biden declines to run for a second term. The Republican Party continues in name but all of its members are white nationalists and their influence pales as the nation enters a generation of Democratic rule.
  #29  
Old 05-07-2019, 07:43 AM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,281
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
I think people are making an incorrect association between perceived competence and the ability to destroy democracy. Most authoritarians are incompetent when it comes to governing a country in ways that produce benefit for the masses; what they're competent at is in gaining power, and while Trump might not know shit about the Constitution, economics, history, and foreign policy, he knows a lot about power. He couldn't have been this successful at conning people for so long if he didn't know something about the human animal and its frailties.
I mean, okay, granted, this relationship is probably true to an extent. But Trump isn't just a little corrupt, he's blatantly, obviously, you'd-have-to-be-a-fucking-moron-to-miss-it corrupt. He seems to revel not just in how fucked up what he's doing is, but how easy it is for him to get away with it. Imagine a candidate with his oratorical skills who was even just a little more careful about not obviously obstructing justice and bragging about it on live TV. Scary, right?
  #30  
Old 05-07-2019, 07:50 AM
Red Wiggler is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,780
They will slide ever so slightly towards the middle and pretend that Donald Trump never actually existed. The one exception is that the drumbeats for "more tax cuts" will never cease, an appeal to the 35% of the population living in states that will nevertheless give them a chance of having 51 senators.

Young people in the GOP will either force the party to abandon the worst of its socially conservative beliefs and address climate change or they will leave the party. Republicans will not change until they have lost an overwhelming percentage of state legislatures and the United States Senate.
  #31  
Old 05-07-2019, 09:06 AM
mozchron is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Posts: 946
Quote:
What will the Republican Party be like post-Trump?
It will be the same as it was pre-Trump and current-Trump. Trump didn't change the Republican party. They have always been racist, sexist, ignorant, hypocritical, and as we have now seen, treasonous fools.

Trump just made them feel comfortable saying the quiet parts out loud.
  #32  
Old 05-07-2019, 10:41 AM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 60,865
They will be in so much fear of losing the Trump demographic that, at best, they will stay right where they are, but what is more likely is that they will panic and swing even more to the rad right.
BTW, if they actually go the other way I will be damn happy to be proven wrong.
  #33  
Old 05-07-2019, 01:06 PM
CAH66 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Posts: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
I mean, okay, granted, this relationship is probably true to an extent. But Trump isn't just a little corrupt, he's blatantly, obviously, you'd-have-to-be-a-fucking-moron-to-miss-it corrupt. He seems to revel not just in how fucked up what he's doing is, but how easy it is for him to get away with it. Imagine a candidate with his oratorical skills who was even just a little more careful about not obviously obstructing justice and bragging about it on live TV. Scary, right?
Nixon's line: "Well, when the president does it, that means that it is not illegal."

Replace "president" with "Republican" and there's the bulk of your modern GOP. I think if Trump ate a live human baby on national TV, he'd not only get away with it, but his supporters would say the Democrats forced him to do it.
  #34  
Old 05-07-2019, 02:31 PM
Max S. is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 798
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAH66 View Post
Nixon's line: "Well, when the president does it, that means that it is not illegal."

Replace "president" with "Republican" and there's the bulk of your modern GOP. I think if Trump ate a live human baby on national TV, he'd not only get away with it, but his supporters would say the Democrats forced him to do it.
Hyperbole aside, if any elected official actually ate a live human baby on national television they would lose their jobs and go to jail or be executed. That's going way over the line. Have some faith in your fellow human beings.

Also the FCC would shut down the broadcast within seconds.

~Max

Last edited by Max S.; 05-07-2019 at 02:32 PM.
  #35  
Old 05-07-2019, 02:56 PM
CAH66 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Posts: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
Hyperbole aside, if any elected official actually ate a live human baby on national television they would lose their jobs and go to jail or be executed. That's going way over the line. Have some faith in your fellow human beings.

Also the FCC would shut down the broadcast within seconds.

~Max
Sorry, I thought the hyperbole was obvious. The main thrust of the sentiment though was sincere. Willfully ignoring the faults, deception, and fundamental dishonesty of a candidate/politician because of the R (or D) label is part and parcel of the hyperpartisan political sphere these days for a very large number of people.
  #36  
Old 05-07-2019, 03:19 PM
snoe is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 1,342
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
+1 to this. I'm not really into identity politics, but it would be immensely entertaining if the first female president were a Republican.
This is prime "owning the libs" stuff, here. Ah, well.

Back to the OP:
1) I'd predict that the post-Trump GOP will have an Overton Window of policy positions in traditional foreign and domestic areas that I can't predict until Trump is out of office. Who knows what he'll manage to cement into GOP orthodoxy? It won't be logically coherent, that's about all I can predict.
2) I'm more confident predicting that the post-Trump GOP will confidently eschew any pretense of conforming to America's norms around free and fair elections. My confidence stems from the GOP's behavior pre- and during-Trump. Whatever they want to do (per point 1, I can't predict that), they'll be pretty brazen about cheating to do it.
  #37  
Old 05-07-2019, 03:21 PM
Max S. is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 798
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAH66 View Post
Sorry, I thought the hyperbole was obvious. The main thrust of the sentiment though was sincere. Willfully ignoring the faults, deception, and fundamental dishonesty of a candidate/politician because of the R (or D) label is part and parcel of the hyperpartisan political sphere these days for a very large number of people.
Agreed. I was rather pleased to hear Fox News on the radio, right after the Mueller report was released: "President Trump did not do the right thing." I believe it was Bret Baier who said that. It reminded me of the Nixon interview.

~Max
  #38  
Old 05-07-2019, 03:24 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,616
Quote:
Originally Posted by snoe View Post
... 2) I'm more confident predicting that the post-Trump GOP will confidently eschew any pretense of conforming to America's norms around free and fair elections. My confidence stems from the GOP's behavior pre- and during-Trump. Whatever they want to do (per point 1, I can't predict that), they'll be pretty brazen about cheating to do it.
This particular high horse looks silly when there's currently an active thread in Elections titled "Blue states propose measures to keep Trump off of 2020 ballots (unless he releases tax returns)"
  #39  
Old 05-07-2019, 03:38 PM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,281
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
This particular high horse looks silly when there's currently an active thread in Elections titled "Blue states propose measures to keep Trump off of 2020 ballots (unless he releases tax returns)"
There's absolutely nothing wrong with codifying this kind of requirement. Demonstrating that you're not, say, directly profiting from your actions in office. And of course, it doesn't just affect Trump, it affects any presidential candidate who insists that their tax status is beyond scrutiny, unlike any of the last 50 years of presidents and presidential candidates. It's such basic shit that it actually kind of boggles the mind that it's controversial.

As Little Nemo put it in the thread in question:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
Technically, it wouldn't be banning Trump from running for President. It would just be some states banning him from appearing on the ballots in that state because he didn't comply with that state's election laws. Which is something states do all the time now. Granted, the candidates from the two major parties don't usually get left off the ballots.

In New York, for example, there were four presidential candidates on the 2016 ballots; Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, Gary Johnson, and Jill Stein. There were several other people running - Darrell Castle, Rocky De La Fuente, Richard Duncan, Rocky Giordani, James Hedges, Tom Hoefling, Chris Keniston, Alyson Kennedy, Laurence Kotlikoff, Gloria La Riva, Mike Maturen, Evan McMullin, Monica Moorehead, Rod Silva, Peter Skewes, Mimi Soltysik, Dan Vacek, and Jerry White - but none of them met the legal standards to be on the ballot in New York.
(Bolding mine.)

Maybe you should be asking yourself why you feel the need to paint basic anti-corruption measures as "cheating". Like, if I was stuck in that kind of bizarro mental position, I'd have to wonder - where did things go wrong in my reasoning? Why am I defending this? (Maybe it has something to do with this: your best response to why they were obviously bad was to compare a basic anti-corruption step taken by every major candidate in every election since the 1970s to partisan policy proposals.)

Last edited by Budget Player Cadet; 05-07-2019 at 03:39 PM.
  #40  
Old 05-07-2019, 03:47 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,616
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
There's absolutely nothing wrong with codifying this kind of requirement. ...
Yes, there is. Read these posts from that thread. It's unconstitutional. That's something wrong with codifying this kind of requirement (or at least with trying to do it through a state law rather than a constitutional amendment).

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 05-07-2019 at 03:47 PM.
  #41  
Old 05-07-2019, 03:51 PM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,281
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Yes, there is. Read these posts from that thread. It's unconstitutional. That's something wrong with codifying this kind of requirement (or at least with trying to do it through a state law rather than a constitutional amendment).
I mean morally or ethically. Constitutionally, sure, why not.
  #42  
Old 05-07-2019, 03:52 PM
snoe is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 1,342
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
This particular high horse looks silly when there's currently an active thread in Elections titled "Blue states propose measures to keep Trump off of 2020 ballots (unless he releases tax returns)"
Why does it seem silly -- or high-horsey -- to you? I can't speak for the people who propose these tax return measures, which haven't passed in any states yet. So the "tu quoque" move you're pulling here seems, to me, to be dodging the issue, which is whether GOP elected officials (including Trump) are remotely serious about winning elections in a free and fair way going forward.

I suspect you don't actually take this argument you're making very seriously. Hey, prove me wrong! Show me how, generally speaking, the GOP is better on free and fair elections than the Democrats.
  #43  
Old 05-07-2019, 03:54 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 12,538
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
This particular high horse looks silly when there's currently an active thread in Elections titled "Blue states propose measures to keep Trump off of 2020 ballots (unless he releases tax returns)"
Just want to remind everyone that this whole subdiscussion is just another verse of that old song "there's this thing that democrats are doing that's bad, which means that republicans can do literally whatever they want no matter how criminal and it's okay. Complaints about republican potential for criminal activity is not to be refuted with counterarguments, but by pointing at the dems and calling them criminals!"
  #44  
Old 05-07-2019, 03:54 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,616
Quote:
Originally Posted by snoe View Post
... Hey, prove me wrong! Show me how, generally speaking, the GOP is better on free and fair elections than the Democrats.
They are not currently proposing state laws targeted to remove the 2020 Dem candidate from the ballot.

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 05-07-2019 at 03:56 PM.
  #45  
Old 05-07-2019, 03:55 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 12,538
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
They are not currently proposing state laws targeted to remove the Dem candidate from the 2020 ballot.
...and the fact they're not doing this one thing means that literally every other thing they are doing or might do is okay.
  #46  
Old 05-07-2019, 03:56 PM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 25,915
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
They are not currently proposing state laws targeted to remove the Dem candidate from the 2020 ballot.
No, they are trying to remove the ability to vote from certain voters who don't lean Republican.
  #47  
Old 05-07-2019, 04:00 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,616
Quote:
Originally Posted by begbert2 View Post
...and the fact they're not doing this one thing means that literally every other thing they are doing or might do is okay.
LOL! One minute prior to this post, you wrote "Complaints about republican potential for criminal activity is not to be refuted with counterarguments, but by pointing at the dems and calling them criminals!""

Literally one minute later you adopt the strategy you just decried, responding to an accusation of Democrats misdeeds, not with counterarguments, but by pointing at the Republicans.

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 05-07-2019 at 04:01 PM.
  #48  
Old 05-07-2019, 04:01 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 33,897
No one is proposing any measures designed to keep candidates off the ballot. Force candidates to release their tax returns, sure -- but that's not keeping anyone off the ballot at all, any more than forcing candidates to collect signatures, or pay application fees, or any other administrative requirement.
  #49  
Old 05-07-2019, 04:03 PM
Max S. is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 798
Quote:
Originally Posted by snoe View Post
Why does it seem silly -- or high-horsey -- to you? I can't speak for the people who propose these tax return measures, which haven't passed in any states yet. So the "tu quoque" move you're pulling here seems, to me, to be dodging the issue, which is whether GOP elected officials (including Trump) are remotely serious about winning elections in a free and fair way going forward.

I suspect you don't actually take this argument you're making very seriously. Hey, prove me wrong! Show me how, generally speaking, the GOP is better on free and fair elections than the Democrats.
I can't speak for other Republicans but I still think free and fair elections are of the utmost importance. When candidate Trump hesitated to say he would accept the results of the election during the debates, I correctly thought "he should not have hesitated." When he tweeted to the contrary (I don't remember if this was before or after), I correctly thought "he does not embody the principles I want our country to stand for".

I don't approve of his whining after Mr. Trump won the election. I would not approve of Mr. Trump's whining if he lost the election. Neither do I think other conservatives would, but my opinion is my own.

~Max
  #50  
Old 05-07-2019, 04:06 PM
Max S. is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 798
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
No, they are trying to remove the ability to vote from certain voters who don't lean Republican.
I think the Republican-Democrat slapfest goes back a long ways and is not worth pursuing.

~Max
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:13 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017