The only amendment I’d make to your excellent “graphic” is that the number of 85-90s is smaller than the number of 90-95s is MUCH smaller than the number of 95-100s.
Yes, everyone’s vote is equal (net of gerrymandering, EC, urban/rural, etc.). But everyone’s leverage on the policy of their party is not. The more extreme you are, the longer your lever arm. When you’re in the extreme minority, the result of the long lever arm is you’re not strong enough to move the needle. When you’re in the near-majority of RWs who score between 95 and 100, that lever arm gives them tremendous power to drag the party and the Overton window much much farther right than it already is.
I didn’t say I believed that Christie had been duped or bamboozled–that’s HIS excuse for supporting Trump and I think (in addition, to “Bullshit!”) that it doesn’t begin to exonerate him. Someone who got fooled into supporting a treacherous lunatic/moron like Trump has shown us that he himself is of poor character, hence DQed for future office. QED, case closed.
Speaking of Republican “moderates,” former Representative Will Hurd announced this morning that he is running for the Republican nomination for President.
I know, who? He’s a former CIA officer and Congressman for the only swing district in Texas who occasionally broke with Trump and Republican leadership. He also did some sort of live-streamed road trip with then-Rep. Beto O’Rourke in 2017. I actually like Hurd, but this is probably the most quixotic Presidential campaign since . . . well, Beto’s.
Maybe this should also go in the “stupid Republican idea” thread. I mean, I’d choose him over Trump, but that’s a pretty low bar. Ryan Binkley, a former pastor, has also announced. I don’t see “President Binkley” being a popular choice in any case.
Recent article by a political scientist on this issue; his thesis is that the Republican party of the past is gone, because it is now the party of populists. So no, there are no moderate Republicans who can retake the party, because they are so badly outnumbered by the new Republicans.
And see also this NYT article, picked up by Yahoo:
How is populist defined here? Because Republican policies certainly do almost nothing for the voters, as contrasted with, for example, Europe’s populist politicians who do actually try and provide jobs, or healthcare, or whatever, while also demonizing immigration and foreigners.
I think it also ignores the Reagan era embrace of Christian Conservatives, who are now a large part of the modern Republican party. But they’re no longer a support, they’re actively political in and of themselves and searching for ever more political power.
I guess you’re saying that they tried to do some of those things through tariffs and the tax law? Both of those efforts failed to accomplish those goals, but I guess they sort of tried (although the tax law was really just a tax giveaway).
High school students vote for the person who promises them pizza for lunch every day and they never get their pizza. Populism is about being a yes man who is funny, likeable, and rags on the lame-o’s. It’s not about delivering on the target numbers.
That’s sort of faux populism, though. The real populists are funny, likeable, rag on the lame-o’s, and deliver something to the populace. At least, that’s how it seems to work in Hungary and Turkey.
Anyway, the article that started this hijack is right – there’s almost nothing left but (faux) populists.
There’s an interesting article in the New Republic (not paywalled) that touches on some of the issues here. It speculates that Trump has driven moderate Republicans, the “never-Trumpers”, into the arms of the Democratic party, more or less permanently. One of the points that the article makes is that individual shifts in voter preferences take time, but speculates that three “Trump for President” elections in a row may be enough to make the individual shifts permanent.
Gives several interviews with former Republican voters, who express their reasons for voting Democratic. Also makes that point that in state elections, the never-Trumpers are more likely to continue to vote for traditional Republicans, like Kemp and Raffensperger in Georgia. (The article is heavy on Georgian examples, but does speak as well about some other states.)
And then there’s the closing paragraph:
It’s impossible to predict the next lasting fault line in American politics. As Schlozman noted, modern political parties rest on a layer of intersecting cleavages going back to the Civil War, and each new alignment leads to new coalitions and new points of contention. But if Trump remains the dominant figure on the GOP scene for yet another election cycle, the voters who fled the Republican Party aren’t likely to return. And even if he does somehow fade into the background, those same voters may find the party they once called their own virtually unrecognizable.
Excellent article. The question is just how big a group are the “never Trumpers.” They clearly are a large enough group to have some influence, otherwise 2022 would have looked like 1994 and 2010. But I don’t know if they’re big enough to outweigh the “only Trumpers” who previously were non-voters, especially in presidential election years, and even more so in presidential election years with a Democratic incumbent, where Democrats have to contend with the phenomena of far left voters staying home or voting third party.
I can see that. But as someone from a family with a lot of union tradesmen, the new MAGA Republicans appeal to many of them. These are the middle class jobs that (real or not, the perception is there) are most threatened by immigrants and offshoring. Combine that with the fact that the working class is often more socially conservative, and they’re defecting.
What is interesting to me is that the Republican party hasn’t yet quite figured out that for this flip flop to complete and be solidified, the Republican party needs to swallow the union pill. Though, I suspect Trump has this figured out.
trump has certainly figured out that he needs to be attractive to Joe UnionMember. Of course nothing of what he’s ever done as a businessman or as a politician has ever had any benefit for any union member.
But he’s real good at faking sincere concern in a novel way from the usual fake sincere concern of standard pols.
This sort of thing is red meat for Trump. In general, on the current path, you should expect the Republican party to become the party of unions and the Democratic party to become to party of bankers as anti-unionists move over and Democrats on the street start feeling like they need to do the opposite of what Republicans do because reasons.
I’ve personally put it down as a final indicator of the death of the true Republican party once it becomes the official party of unions. The Dixiecrats will have successfully taken it over.
There is a lot wrong in this post, but a big one is that the Dixiecrats were southern and the south is very anti-union.
If the Republicans really became pro-union, their funding would dry up immediately. Trump throwing up barriers because he doesn’t understand international trade at all wasn’t pro-union, it was Trump idiocy. And, he’s the only one cozying up to workers at all.
All of this is just another aspect of the illogic if you will at the center of the R party: the plutocrats plus country club crowd making common cause with the white reactionary People of Wal*Mart.
Not that there aren’t similar illogics within the big-tent Ds. But right now the two main parts of the Rs are on radically divergent courses and something is going to give before it’s over.
