Well now I’m curious which Congressional races have Republican incumbents in districts where Trump is polling decent, and whose Congressperson has distanced him/herself from Donald (and where the Democratic candidate isn’t a complete putz). Essentially, for those of us looking to divert our Hillary donations to Congressional races that may flip as a result of Don’s War, which Congressional races are those?
ETA: I’ve found possibly Emily Cain in ME and Terri Bonhoff is MN. Anyone have info on those races? Would donations there be wasted money?
Politics is largely a game for people with no ability to form long-term memories. You’re bitter enemies in the primaries and then best friends during the election. The current events are certainly unusual, but I see no reason why the GOP won’t resume united obstruction as usual by December. There’s no time for party collapse when there is an opportunity to prevent progress.
There will be a few outliers like me who remember what happened and may never vote Republican again, but I’m in a solid blue state anyway. They have no interest in me.
Just because cataclysmic shifts are less likely than gradual change, my prediction is that the Republican establishment decides, quietly, to ignore their radical fringe alt-right tea party members, and work with the Democratic Senate and White House.
In 2018 those disenfranchised die-hards realize that they can either form their own doomed party, or come crawling back to the mainstream GOP that they no longer control, and choose the latter.
Sanity is restored and our long national nightmare is over.
In other news, We Hunted the Mammoth reported a few days ago that weird alt-right and old-school sexism website Return of Kings is advising its followers to start stocking up on ammo if Trump loses. They also suggest maybe teaming up with a manly friend for workouts and late-night chats about the apocalypse.
The upside is that they also recommend dropping out of the electoral process, since Democracy will be Hillary’s first victim. Good riddance!
Your FiveThirtyEight cite is talking about the relative popularity of Trump vs. Ryan among Republican primary voters. Ryan won his primary with something like 80% of the votes. I doubt very much if Ryan needs Trump’s endorsement at this point. Nor in the general election - I hope and expect that Trump is going to get hammered.
The 538 cite appears to believe that Trump has coattails of some sort - I think, and it appears that Ryan thinks, the exact opposite is true.
Status quo ante: the relative normalcy that existed prior to Obama’s election, the creation of the Tea Party, and subsequent sucking-up by the GOP establishment.
Agree 100%. Additionally, by not disavowing the racist, xenophobic, seam of the party, they have essentially embraced them, if only for the votes. If this schism can be exploited properly, to either kick-out the batshit brigade, or form a more traditional conservative party, they would likely pull-over some of the more conservative Democrats. There is a real opportunity for the GOP to re-form itself now. Let’s see if they choose reform, or the continued chaos.
It seems like politicians have dissociated themselves from the candidate but the party hasn’t quite: does the GOP have a candidate standing for election for the presidency or not?
Quoted for truth times 1000. I’ve tried to post this several times but I couldn’t ever seem to get the words right. Malthus did it with elegant brevity.
I’ve not read that article, but in my ignorance I agree with you :). FWIW, Ryan is the sort of conservative that I stridently disagree with and cordially dislike and think is being a weaselly politician about the whole Trump thing (UNENDORSE THE MOTHERFUCKER ALREADY, RYAN!)–but is STILL someone I’d welcome as the loyal opposition. I think the country would be worse off under a Ryan presidency, but to borrow PJ O’Rourke’s fantastic endorsement of Clinton, he’s wrong, but “wrong within normal parameters.”
That was basically my attitude toward Romney as well.
I suspect that Ryan sees the Tea Party as rats that have infested the Grand Old Party. If in this election he can lock the barn and let the whole thing burn to the ground, he can rebuild atop the smoldering ruins, sans rats. He’s probably fine with the implosion of the Trump campaign, and even with reverse coattails, as long as the main victims are Tea Partiers.
More importantly (IMHO), they trained their base to be uncritical thinkers - straight top-down authoritarian followers who will swallow and regurgitate memes and talking points without ever attempted to fit them into a principled whole.
As for this, despite loathing Trump and everything he stands for, the one thing he’s gotten right is also what Sanders got right: he tapped into the real and legitimate anger of the working poor in a way that Democrats haven’t done in decades, and Republicans haven’t done in longer (arguably Reagan did, but his union-busting renders that a pretty controversial claim).
Populism isn’t necessarily toxic, and I would freakin’ love for Democrats to take some lessons from this campaign about returning to their roots. All those union workers who are voting for Trump? That’s because they’ve been abandoned by Democrats. Let’s get Democratic candidates who run on a less toxic populist platform and see where we can go.
But I think there’s a reasonable case to be made that if Trump loses by 10 that the brand of toxic populism will be damaged by the loss.
Moreover, there’s also some reason to think that Trump was uniquely suited to capitalize on this. He could self-fund at the beginning. He had an unusually divided primary field. He had a ton of name recognition and lots of TV experience. And he was fighting to replace the first black President, whose mere blackness set the GOP on fire.
Finally, it gets harder and harder each cycle to try for the “crazy old white guy” strategy. 2016 may prove that that strategy was already dead. And it will be even deader in 2020.
Maybe there’s a strain of toxic populism that appeals more to millenials ala Bernie Sanders. But that strikes me as even more unlikely to represent a winning electoral coaliation.
So, the time when Republicans were too busy invading countries under false pretenses and having people tortured to put effort into making fools of themselves.
Great.
I prefer Trumpian lunacy; it gets fewer people killed.
538 is a number crunching site and that pile of sloppy thinking article is a good reason it should stay that way. First off, looking at their own chart, Ryan’s approval ratings started dropping well before Trump became sole survivor and bottomed out weeks after the endorsement. So right off the bat it’s bullshitting. It then handwaves away the fact that Ryan is perfectly safe in his current seat. I’m sure Ryan wants the party to grow and maybe someday wants a run at the big job but the article is completely one-sided by failing to mention the positive implications of not embracing Trump for those endeavors.
Trust me, if you don’t interact with extreme right wingers, some of them say jaw droppingly stupid things with a straight face. They place zero value on objective truth. None. ‘facts’ are just things to manipulate to feel emotions like outrage, sanctimoniousness, contempt, anger and disgust to these people. They place zero value in objective truth and only care about facts as tools to help them feel the emotional states they enjoy.
The gop base didn’t elect him in a vacuum. He represents them. He is selfish, delusional, aggressive, authoritarian, etc.
Hillary was right with her basket of deplorables comment. About 30-50% who will vote for him (about 15% of all adults) are just like him. The rest of his supporters are more sane (moderates, libertarians, businessmen, etc).