I think the OP is right about the presidential race but I don’t see why the Trump fiasco would help Democrats in Congressional races. It might even have the opposite effect: sane Republicans refusing to vote for the orange douchebag, but being therefore more motivated than ever to maintain control of the House and Senate. Regardless, I think the Trump fiasco is going to have long-term impacts even if it’s not an existential threat to the party, and will long be the source of debate about the disturbing nature of a significant portion of the electorate.
The core Republican party is never going to fracture. There will be some hand-wringing pretense at moral struggle… but this November, and 2 years after that, and 2 years after that, and 4 years after that, and 40 years after that, you’ll see boot-sucking obeisiance to whoever strokes guns, supports yet more tax cuts for the rich, and opposes reproductive rights for women. We might see a couple of principled ephemeral schisms that will be incinerated in the holy wrath of the populist true believers long before they make any political difference.
I doubt it. There may be a realignment, but I doubt the GOP falls apart. The GOP still can easily get 45% of the vote no matter how idiotic their frontrunner candidate is, there is no incentive to change.
I do think the dems will have something like a civil war. The party is trying to balance a progressive group that wants the dems to take on the rich and the powerful with establishment dems who only want token reform so long as it doesn’t anger the rich and powerful.
However the dems may just become demoralized or go green.
No, it couldn’t. The Libertarians are fierce about financial liberty and cry some deeply convincing crocodile tears toward social liberty, but when push comes to shove they always carry water for hereditary power and capital.
It feels like the time is ripe for that, but if the time were ripe, then wouldn’t it be already happening? In the absence of such action we have to assume that we’re dealing with a bunch of assholes.
I better take those things away before it turns ugly…
They’ll put on tricorn hats, call themselves something they think is clever, and pretend Trump never happened. Just as they did regarding Bush, who also never happened.
The premise is based both on the increasing tendency for straight ticket voting and that the Presidential race drives the turnout.
Yes there is lots more money going into GOP Congressional candidate coffers as the big donors shy away from Herr Hair. But many races are in purple land. Does a candidate attach to Trump (and drive away moderates) or disavow (and drive away Trump supporters)? Or flip back and forth? Basically saying “I withdraw my endorsement as Trump stayed Trump after all. Who knew he’s do that?”
Swing voters clicking D are more likely to vote straight ticket D than split. GOP leaners who cannot vote Trump cannot swallow voting Clinton either will to some significant degree just stay home.
I don’t know if it will fragment formally. Informally and functionally of course it already has. Assuming (a big assumption) that Trump loses solidly then he trades on the increased brand power he now has commercially, but he functions more like a Palin than a leader of anything. And who else is able to lead the completely whackadoodle White male resentment section? They do not form a party but they stay home more. Still they win House seats across rural America, local government control remains theirs in many cases, and even a few Senate seats. The remaining section finally enters a rebuilding and rebranding phase (see the new branding attempts that Ryan has been trying out). despite a newfound rejection of the minority bashing and xenophobia that Trump explicitly appeals to they keep enough whackadoodles that progress winning non-White voters who agree with them on all else other that the bashing of all that is non-White becomes enough to make them a competitive force at a Presidential level again. In a few cycles.
Romney and the Bushes. Kind of like you had to be in the Resistance to be involved in French politics in 1946.
Not going to happen, since I bet that in their meeting today Hillary was giving Bernie a choice of jobs in her Administration and a choice of platform items.
Even if Republicans do split, there will be one type of Republican dominant in each state, so Democrats will have to be unified.
Democrats will only split in this scenario if everyone goes to California style voting, which may cause two democrats to run against each other, as in the Senate race this year. But that seems unlikely.
And for years after. Kind of testament to the Germans, managing to control France when fully half the population was active in the Resistance.
Trade protectionism is the key issue that Ross Perot ran on. He got a whopping 19% of the vote in 1992 and would have gotten more with better charisma or campaign eptitude.
However do not expect a party based primarily on this populist issue to achieve dominance. Big politics in the U.S.A. is dominated by big money, and big money largely opposes protectionism.
If Trump is stomped in the general election – like a historic blowout – that might be the best thing for the Republican party… they hang their heads, the establishment says “we told you so”, and they go forward kind of weakened, but mostly together. The nutters mostly retreat out of politics and complain, and the Republicans stay in the woods for a few cycles.
But if it’s close, whether a close Trump victory or close Trump loss, the Trumpers will be energized and the anti-Trumpers will be terrified, and that could actually split the party.
I think it’s because people disgusted with Republicans will stay home on election day, and not go to the polls to just vote for their particular local Republicans. They will be thinking about how their Senator and Congressman swallowed the Kool Aid and endorsed Trump – that’s enough reason not to vote for them either.
To expand my thoughts further, I think the political axes in America are rotating. The main axes in American politics are
- Social conservatives, religious fundamentalists, racists.
versus - Social liberals, religious liberals, pro-immigration.
and
A) Economic populists, economic progressives, trade protectionists.
versus
B) Economic pragmatists, corporatists, trade internationalists.
The system that fell apart is 1B vs 2A. We’re headed for 1A vs 2B, but the transition is incomplete.
This configuration is improbable. The Democrats have no reason to leave the center; that’s a good place to be politically in and govern from. The only reason they’ll leave the center is if another party pushes them out by stealing planks from them. What the Democrats did to the Republicans in the 90s. The Republicans can’t do that, unless the moderates and corporatists take back control; the Tea Party has no interest in the center. The economic progressives might be able to pull left from within the party, but that will be very difficult as the moderates and corporatists become more and more Democratic.
Three parties only work (even in the short term) if the smaller parties are more opposed to each other than they are to the dominant party. Otherwise, they’ll stick together. That’s why the Republican party is sticking together during the Trump campaign, even though they despise each other. A third party will have to be to the left of the Democrats.
But if some segment of the current Republican coalition can find allies among the Democratic dissenters, then we’ll see a true realignment like what happened after the civil rights era.
I don’t want to jinx anything about the GOP breaking up because I cannot imagine such a glorious outcome in my lifetime, so I won’t make any predictions.
However, its true that the base that’s supporting Trump is loud, angry, and racist, and more importantly, feel like they don’t have to hide it anymore. They are a product of decades of resentment. What I want to know is, where is that anger going after Trump loses? I can’t imagine its going away, and a loss to their most hated Democrat seems like it would fan the flames rather than dull them with the reality that Hillary Clinton is really a sort of centrist with a lot of pragmatic ideas. So where do they go afterwards? Another Trump-like candidate? Bowing out of politics completely (I can’t see that happening, people don’t give up power if they think they’ll use it the best)? Or break up into increasingly smaller and more extreme factions that only try to work with each other every 2 or 4 years in November?
They will become the core of the already conveniently-named Tea Party, who are probably best posed of all these splintering interests to have an at least partially viable 3rd party that can win elections. Not the Presidency, and probably not many or any Senate races, but they can carve out probably quite a number of House seats.
The good news about this is that they won’t even pretend to caucus and cooperate with the more pragmatic conservative groups, so they instead will be a long term anchor slowing down the reestablishment of a truly national conservative party.
Let’s see how you do on this prediction before we give credence to any others you make.
Yes… I think you’ve put some specific names and ideas to what I was trying to express.
I’m not even sure that we’ll complete a transition, but we’re definitely seeing a shift (or an attempt to shift) the traditional compromises between the various sub-groups of both parties.
In any event, it’s the kind of shift that can easily happen without either party breaking up or any third party gaining popularity.
This is the civil rights era. The struggle for egalitarian democracy, roughly 1775 to the present.
I used to think this too - until so much of the Establishment got down on their knees. While Ryan and McConnell would probably push their criticism of Trump and try to hide the support, the Bush/Romney/Graham wing might use it to push them out of power.
On the other hand, the Republicans in more moderate districts might be more likely to lose than the ones in the redder districts, so the party might get even more extreme. And hurtle, unified, to irrelevance, like the party in California.
Trump will probably say the Romney wing stabbed him in the back.