People who switch parties are never trusted again by either side and find their political futures at an end.
If Republicans want to tear each other up to pacify Trump, so he can destroy their party like he has bankrupted everything he’s ever touched, I’m happy to step aside and not get in their way.
Get-da-fugouta-heaya! :}
Sure, if the Democratic Party wants to sell out for about a dollar and change (i.e. one seat).
But I guess it’s a strategy. Something similar has been suggested before:
Well, that’s not true. There are certainly examples in American and abroad of politicians who switched parties and went on to long, fruitful careers where they enjoyed good relationships with members of both their current and former party. Even if you only include politicians who switched parties while in office (e.g. earlier in life Ronald Reagan was a registered Democrat and Hillary Clinton a registered Republican) a few that come to mind are Senators Phil Gramm, Richard Shelby, and Ben Nighthorse Campbell. Winston Churchill switched parties twice before he become Prime Minister.
Putting aside the past, I think that, today, in the U.S., party changing politicians would have a big trust problem of this sort.
I think that’s unfortunate. In the abstract, I like party changing.
Of course, a party change needs to be based on more than one issue, even as big a one as what you think of Donald Trump.
And every white supremacist Democrat who switched parties to become a white supremacist Republican was lauded and re-elected until death.
Certainly a fair point that most of the examples of “successful” party switching occurred at least 20-30 years ago, and mostly involve conservative Southern Democrats simply recognizing the realignment of the region behind the GOP. There have been some other examples – Lincoln Chafee was elected to the Senate as a Republican in Rhode Island then elected Governor as a Democratic-leaning Independent. But I think you’re right that the parties are so consolidated now that party switchers end up with no home – e.g. Arlen Specter.
And the kind of mercenary party switching posited by the OP would be nearly impossible to pull off. Democratic donors and activists would revolt if Liz Cheney were admitted to the caucus. As @LSLGuy and @JRDelirious point out, if it comes down to a nearly-tied House, there are dozens of Reps who are more closely ideologically aligned with the other party who would be better targets for party switching.
And neither side could ever trust the other to actually stick to such a secret arrangement. Is Liz Cheney really going to vote with the Democrats if they invoke the “must vote with us” clause on a late-term abortion ban bill? And can Nancy Pelosi actually convince Wyoming Democrats to line up behind Cheney? What’s in it for state party leaders and members who are vehemently opposed to her positions and have spend years in the trenches working to oppose her?
i think it’s being overstated how strictly the norms of the past will apply to post-Trump politics. Obviously I’m assuming a more tumultuous next few years than many of you are but I think we’re in for some serious realignment. Again, I ask what does Cheney have to lose by painting her face with stripes and running on the Zebra ticket? Her career as we know if is O-VER if she loses the GOP primary. Nothing to lose is a dangerous position. And again, what do the Dems in WY have to lose? This is pure mischief that may appeal to both Cheney and the Dems.
Several people in this thread have laid out repeatedly what Cheney and Democrats have to lose from this arrangement, there seems little point in continuing to hash this over. I would ask you, though, of the hundreds (if not thousands) of political commentators and media talking heads who would love nothing more than to generate viewers and clicks through off-the-wall predictions of crazy political outcomes, has anyone suggested the same plan as you?
Cheney’s best bet for political survival is a plurality win in a crowded Republican primary. If she’s running against a dozen Trumpy Republicans, she could eek out a win with 25% of the primary vote. Democrats could help her out some there, as Wyoming allows voters to change their registration on the day of the primary.
If both Cheney and some Trumper like Bouchard or Gray run, it could split the Republican vote and open up a possibility for a Democrat.
Why? The Trumpers keep losing elections. At some point the more mainstream Republicans are going to re-assert themselves. Cheney is positioning herself for that.
“Several people in this thread have laid out repeatedly what Cheney and Democrats have to lose”–name the most convincing one or two, please? I don’t see it. All I’ve read amounts to “Never been done” (to which I say, “So What?”) and “People will never trust them again” (to which I say “You mean like people now rely on politicians to be pure and honest tellers of unvarnished truth?”) Which particular repetition do you find the most persuasive?
Well, maybe she’ll live to be 200 or so, and you’ll be proven right. (Though neither of us will be around to witness that.) But in the next decade or two, she’ll have pissed off enough Trumpers to make her unelectable (as a GOPer) in WY, I think.
The numbers are interesting. Say 70% of WY votes Republican, which is roughly accurate: something less than that full 70% are anti-Cheney (I assume her family and close personal friends are still in her camp.) Do 5% support her? if that’s the case, my argument doesn’t stand up. But I think she has more than 5% of Wyoming GOP voters on her side. Maybe much more.
That wasn’t a long term prediction. The Trumpers lost elections in 2018 and 2020. The rest of the Republican party isn’t going to play ball with them much longer. I think we’ll see it after the 2022 elections. Maybe the 2024 elections. But I am confident the Trumpers will be irrelevant by 2026.
The Republican party doesn’t need to worry about what Trump voters are thinking. They’re just sheep. If Donald Trump can lead them, anyone can.
I don’t want to speak for @flurb, but I’m going to give this one more try.
-
The secret deal you’re proposing is profoundly dishonest and unethical. Let’s assume that it’s even workable (I don’t think it is; see below). Liz Cheney stands to lose her principles. The entire reason her seat is currently in jeopardy is precisely because she stood up for her principles, knowing there would likely be a political price to pay.
-
Liz Cheney doesn’t even really gain much by selling out her constituents. On any vote where the outcome isn’t in doubt, she’s able to make a pretense of voting in accord with her conscience, constituents, and the Constitution. On any vote where her one vote might actually make a difference, she has to toss aside the three Cs, and her oath, and simply obey Nancy Pelosi. She will have no influence in a Democratic Party caucus where her policy positions will be far to the right of literally anyone else in the entire caucus. Since her vote is already pre-sold, she’ll have no leverage or bargaining power. As a defector, she’ll have no influence in the Republican Party caucus. And, again, no leverage or bargaining power. She’ll be sitting in a largely ceremonial seat for two years.
-
After those two years, she’ll have nothing to stand on. She’ll be radioactive in Republican party circles. She’ll only maintain the support of the Democratic party so long as Republicans nominate a Trumpist for the Wyoming seat. If they nominate a sane but very conservative candidate, her Democratic support will evaporate. She won’t even be able to sell herself as a principled independent, as she’ll have had to abandon her publicly stated policy positions and principles on any close votes.
-
You still haven’t answered how this deal works in practical terms. How does she know which votes she has to toe Pelosi’s line? Any vote where the Democratic Whip tells her they think it’s going to be close? Does Pelosi ram through a special rule that the Member from Wyoming always votes last? Does she retain her independence on votes that require 2/3 or 3/4 super-majorities? How does any of this actually work?
-
Why would the Wyoming Democratic Party go along with this? Are they in on the secret deal? If so, how many people are party to this deal? If not, why on Earth would they throw their support behind a conservative Republican? Just having a nominal “D” in the House doesn’t do them any good if they think she’ll continue to vote as a Republican. And why would Wyoming Democrats vote for her? Even if her opponent is a nutjob Trumper, at best they’d be voting for someone with whom they disagree on virtually everything, who they think would vote against their policy preferences in virtually every instance. What do the Democratic voters of Wyoming have to gain for voting for her?
Never been to Wyoming, but I suspect that most folks there hew to a belief system that postulates a Creator of the Universe who gives a shit about what people do. The best suggestion I have is to keep pounding on the fact that voting for a Republican is a sin.
Here’s an alternate path for Liz Cheney. She remains a Republican and fights for her seat in the 2022 Republican primaries. As several other posters have pointed out, by 2022 the Trumpist influence may have waned. Even if it hasn’t, in a crowded field, she could still win a plurality. She’s then a shoe-in in the general. With no back-room deals giving away her voting power and influence.
As a fall-back, if she’s primaried in 2022, she then does what so very many politicians have done. She gets a gig as a pundit, possibly on MSNBC as every liberal’s favorite “principled conservative”. Especially with her father’s connections, she could also probably land a gig as an adjunct professor at a college somewhere, and a few seats on various boards.
She spends a couple of years of maintaining, even raising, her national profile. She presents herself as a principled Republican who’s willing to “sacrifice” to do the right thing. And she fights the libs on their own turf, as the token Republican talking head on MSNBC, and in academia. Then she runs again. Maybe for her old House seat. Maybe for Senate, or Governor of Wyoming. Maybe, even, if her pundit gig raises her profile enough, and the Trumpists seem like they may have burned themselves out, a run at the Republican presidential nomination in 2024.
That seems to me like a much more plausible path to remain or regain office than a convoluted secret scheme to sell her vote to Nancy Pelosi.
Or maybe she just makes a permanent career as a pundit. Which seems like a lot better deal for her than the one you want her to make.
You summarized it better that I could have. I sincerely don’t want to pile on to @Roger_That, party switches can and do happen for reasons both ideological and opportunistic (usually both, e.g. Jim Jeffords). But the machinations proposed here just don’t pass the smell test.
We can be sure she is being advised by her Dad and his old-boys network. You seem to be channeling them.