The Republican Party will fragment shortly after November

[Chimera]

@PhillyGuy

The two party system isn’t a coincidence. It’s because of a combination of one past the post, geographical legislative districts, and lack of provision for coalition government. Other countries with few parties have some of these, but we have all.

Sure, they are ways the keep the two party system and realign. There could be a Christian Democrat party vs. a liberatarian/secularist/corporatist party.

I wouldn’t touch either one of those with a 10’ pole and the first seems unlikely.

[Chimera]

@Pleonast

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.

Sure, if you ignore my whole premise of the Tea Party not being part of the Republican party anymore. :rolleyes:

[Euphonious_Polemic]

The Republicans fragmenting after November seems optimistic at this point:

Trump Threatens to go it alone, and tells Republican leaders to “be quiet”

[Pleonast]

@Chimera

@Pleonast

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.

Sure, if you ignore my whole premise of the Tea Party not being part of the Republican party anymore. :rolleyes:

Try reading the paragraphs after the one you quoted.

@Pleonast

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.

That is, I deny the Tea party would ever separate from the rest of the Republicans unless there’s an ally to the left of the Democrats that is more palatable.

[Melbourne]

@BrainGlutton

But the Libertarians can’t do that. They’re stuck with a party name that actually has definite ideological content.

The word “Libertarian” would of course loose it’s ideological content if it acquired a different meaning.

Just like “Republican” or “Democrat”. Or “Liberal” or “Socialist” or “Fascist” or (in communist countries) “Communist”.

And technical words like “resolution” and “discrimination” and “moron” and “cretin” and “dashboard” and “theft” …
FWIW, there are already members of the Libertarian party who think that their party has been stolen from them by the “moderates”, as exemplified by their presidential candidate.

[Lemur866]

In a shocking prediction, I hereby proclaim that there will be no party breakup. What would be purpose?

What would Tea Partyers or Corporatist Republicans or Berniebros hope to gain by leaving a major party? Yes, maybe the party doesn’t fit their various agendas perfectly. So what? Leaving the party doesn’t advance your agenda either. If you’re a progressive your best shot at actually enacting change is to work to take over the Democrats. If you’re a Tea Party guy then you’ve already taken over the Republicans. If you’re a moderate Republican, what are you going to do, vote for Hillary? No, you stay as a Republican, because it turns out that Tea Party guys are perfectly happy to vote for tax cuts and deregulation. What’s the supposed conflict that makes coexistence between the Tea Party wing and the traditional wing impossible?

Is the supposed split over “economic populism”? But what supposed policy differences is this supposed to be? Higher taxes? Lower taxes? Trade barriers?

Protectionist candidates could get elected, but why would they try to get elected under a third party? If you’re a right-wing protectionist, or a left-wing protectionist, what would make it easier to get elected as a third party candidate, as opposed to a Republican or Democrat who happens to be a protectionist?

You don’t get thrown out of the party just because you’re out of step with the party on a couple of issues. The only way you get thrown out of the party is if you stop winning elections. Moderate Republicans who got primaried by Tea Party guys lost, and are now irrelevant. Oh, they should start a new party? What good would that do, when they couldn’t win a primary against the Tea Party guy? If they really were that popular, then maybe try to defeat the primary challenge? And if you can’t do that, pack it up, your career in elective politics is over, and it’s time to move on to your post-elective career as a lobbyist or talking head or whatever.

To get elected you need more votes than the other guy. If you can’t win a primary then you’re not gonna win the general election, other than a small number of Lieberman-style comebacks that you can count of the fingers of one hand. Win the election and it doesn’t matter what sort of ideology you believe in. Lose the election and it doesn’t matter either.

[Trinopus]

There is a fantasy among some that if they cause their party to lose the election, then, next time around, the party will have to pay more attention to them and give them what they want.

It’s a kind of “hostage” strategy. “You’ll keep losing, until you swing way over in our direction.”

(Not entirely dissimilar from shutting down the government in order to get what you want…)

The strategy is not completely bankrupt, but, as with most Mutually Assured Destruction strategies, it works better as a threat than as an accomplishment.

[septimus]

Pew’s political typology may be a useful starting point for imagining partisan realignments.

Pew divides the U.S. electorate into seven roughly equal-sized groups. The three most politically engaged groups are the solidly Democrat “Solid Liberals”, and two solidly Republican groups, the anti-immigrant “Steadfast Conservatives” and the pro-business “Business Conservatives.” Without the two major conservative groups united, the GOP has no chance, and we see this need for unity being played out in this campaign.

What about the other four of Pew’s groups? Which are providing support for Trumpism, and which might support a reformed GOP with the Trumpists ousted? The two socially liberal youthful groups are surely anti-Trump, and so is the racially diverse and religious “Faith and Family Left.” The cynical low-income “Hard-Pressed Skeptics” mostly voted for Obama; are they ripe for Trumpism?

TL;DR - Either America’s youth will awaken and force the GOP to reject Trumpism and become socially liberal. Or the GOP will continue on as a misshapen coalition of the Haters and the Greedy.

[Hari_Seldon]

There are two things that worry me greatly.

1. Trump has defied every prediction. Even a month ago, the votemaster was giving Trump only about 1200 delegates and now it is 1500. A year ago, he wouldn’t have given a plugged nickel for Trump’s chances. So I am still worried that all the prognosticators are wrong.

2. But much more serious, suppose you are all right and Trump goes down to ignominious defeat. All those angry men will get even angrier. And they virtually all have guns.

[BrainGlutton]

@Hari_Seldon

2. But much more serious, suppose you are all right and Trump goes down to ignominious defeat. All those angry men will get even angrier. And they virtually all have guns.

Don’t you get it? The whole point of the Trump campaign is to eventually bring them all out onto the streets – and then herd them into a kill-zone.

[Leaper]

Okay, so which states that Obama won in the last election are going to go to Trump this time? How many EVs does that add up to?

[Johnny_Ace]

@Hari_Seldon

There are two things that worry me greatly.

1. Trump has defied every prediction. Even a month ago, the votemaster was giving Trump only about 1200 delegates and now it is 1500. A year ago, he wouldn’t have given a plugged nickel for Trump’s chances. So I am still worried that all the prognosticators are wrong.

2. But much more serious, suppose you are all right and Trump goes down to ignominious defeat. All those angry men will get even angrier. And they virtually all have guns.

Trump has defied every prediction in the Republican echo chamber, which is far different from the general electorate.

[foolsguinea]

OPtimist.

[Johnny_Ace]

Somebody pinch me, I must be dreaming…

House GOP to Move on Measures to Block Terrorists From Buying Guns

[Boyo_Jim]

@Johnny_Ace

Somebody pinch me, I must be dreaming…

House GOP to Move on Measures to Block Terrorists From Buying Guns

I haven’t heard this, but it should be interesting. What are the odds that whatever checks they want to make involve the question, “Are you a Muslim”?