What I’m hearing from them is “He’s a racist son of a bitch but screw it, we’ve got to win”. A few, like Senator Kirk, have shown some integrity. Too many have not.
I had a low opinion of them and they are basically behaving as I would expect. They are choosing whatever they think is most likely to help their party and their individual election chances. So endorsing Trump to prevent a full on civil war within the party while trying to distance themselves from rhetroic that will doom their chances with minorities for a generation.
I actually have started feeling a bit of sympathy for dyed in the wool Republicans having to make a choice this year. I was thinking about how I would choose if the choices were Jeb Bush vs. a recently resurrected Marion Barry. On the one hand Bush would make a much better chief executive than Barry would, but the prospect of 2 or more supreme court justices being chosen by Bush, might tilt me in the direction of clicking the D lever even though I realize he would be a much inferior candidate.
Well, it’s Illinois and he’s trying to appeal to moderate or even Democratic voters to save his seat. That may be unfair since we can’t prove how he’d act if he was running in Texas, but I don’t know if denouncing Trump is a real vote-loser here in the Prairie State. Supporting Trump though almost certainly is.
It’s really starting to sound like they’re okay with a racist in the White House so long as it’s “Racist ®.”
Exactly. There are a few people trying to claim it wasn’t racist, but most of the commenting Republican office holders are saying it was racist, but…
“Not to support a racist, but… he’s better for our team.”
(R), me hearties! (R)! (R)!
Problem: anything the Pubbie “leadership” does to rebuke Trump will anger his supporters. And how many of them are already sulking about how the Establishment treats their guy? I can see three main reactions: one, goes in and votes for Trump but votes for a non-Pubbie on all down-ticket. Two, voter decides fix is in, no point in voting at all, stays home. Three, goes ahead and votes Pubbie all the way down because Hillary,
Thing is, these are all Pubbie voters, who should, by all history, already be in Trump’s pocket. So each of these is a net loss of votes. The guy who votes against Trump but for, say, Kirk should already have been a Kirk voter. Kirk loses the guy who stays home, keeps the straight ticket guy he had anyway, And loses the guy who votes for Trump but punishes the Pubbie Establishment down-ticket.
Add to that the longstanding Dem problem of turnout. Trump is enthusiastically and relentlessly solving that problem. Big Time and Downtown.
I’m torn between what to choose.
Obviously, anyone who risks the wrath of Trump supporters to speak out against him while they are in the same party deserves some kudos.
But these are the same people who have played poor against rich, black against white, nativists against foreigners, and created the climate that allows someone like Trump to flourish. That they are trying to save their own hides and not doing it out of altruism disgusts me.
Plus these same people through incompetence or malice did not stop Trump back when he was capable of being stopped, and like McCain choosing Palin, foisted this guy onto the American people. They share credit for any damage that results from the Trump campaign and possible presidency.
I vote low opinion, and stayed the same.
I sort of expected this. The Republican establishment of Maine supported Lepage as governor.
lowered my opinion of the Republican establishment and 2 of my neighbors that like ! I read that Ronald Regan’s son said he dad would had not had voted for Trump and no one in his family are voting for Trump. I voted for GOP governor and so far he not for Trump I hope it stay that way b/c I was planning on voting for my governor again.
To a large extent I agree with you, but it’s pretty hypocritical to say “Don’t vote for our nominee.” I’m not sure that I’d have much respect for them if they do that.
I’d have a lot more respect if they rewrote the rules and put in a real candidate. It would be suicidal for the current election, but is the only thing I can think of that would clearly establish that the RNC stands for anything.
Mark Kirk, while I’m glad he’s in the right place, is doing what’s good for Mark Kirk. Tammy Duckworth was always the superior candidate and this obviously won’t save him.
The GOP establishment certainly has a dilemma. But I don’t think Trump is going to increase Democratic turnout the way you think. I’ve never seen turnout go up significantly because there was someone people wanted to vote against. I’ve only seen it go up when there was someone people wanted to vote for. I guess Trump is SO bad that this year might be an exception, but at this point we could see the highest turnout ever thanks to Trump or the lowest simply because so few can stand either candidate.
ARGH! Don’t tempt me!
I believe in democracy, but at this point I’m just looking for any excuse to support denying the will of Republican voters.
I believe in democracy too. It happens in November. The primaries is pseudo-democracy: as a mechanism for conveying voter preferences to government, it’s dysfunctional and always has been.
Why should we expect a political party in an electoral system gamed for two parties to stand for anything other than forming a coalition?
Solid majorities of the Republican primary base are bigot-friendly. I honestly think that most GOP Washingtonians are more cosmopolitan. So it’s awkward.
In a multiparty system, the Republicans would have fractured long ago. Trump could still launch a hostile takeover of one faction or another (depending upon party rules), but the demagogic cancer would have been quarantined.
Agreed, wish I was home to vote for her. Kirk is just scrambling now, but it’s hopefully, too little too late.
After thinking it over, I want to elaborate what I said earlier/repeat what I said months ago.
Handing the nomination to somebody other than Trump would be a slap in the face of his supporters, a violation of common norms of fairness, a violation of moral (though not legal) notions of due process and could conceivably destroy the Republican party. It just wouldn’t be undemocratic.
The GOP created its own Gehenna; overloading the base with nonsense and dog whistles created an opening for Trump. He has shattered 7 guardrails of Democracy. Between now and November it’s all damage control.
Will this inspire a walk in the woods or a spell of contemplation in the wilderness, like the Democrats did after 1984? It’s hard to imagine frankly. Every pivot taken by the Republicans since 1960 has innovated sleaze rather than contained it. One first step could be to embrace good government and good governance. Sounds unlikely.
I don’t think they were “OK” with it. But what could they do back when he wasn’t perceive as a real threat? Remember, we thought he’d fizzle out by Iowa. Very few hitched their wagon to his for their personal gain.
My opinion of them was low, and on the whole, they are busily justifying it. They’re either supporting the walking disaster that is Trump or scrambling to do damage control. Or…whatever it is Ryan’s trying to do. (I’m guessing it’s the political equivalent of seppuku with a spork, but I guess we’ll see.)
We were already supposed to have a time in the wilderness. Democrats keep on screwing that up. When Republicans soundly trounce Democrats, Democrats get some time for contemplation. We keep on getting big election wins only two years after Democratic victories. It’s hard to see that we’re doing anything wrong, plus it causes these power struggles to be hashed out with the stakes much higher.
So if Democrats win in 2016, can you guys promise not to piss of the voters this time so that they hand us 70 new seats?