We’ve already got extremists holding state offices. It’s a problem we can live with. Extremists in Congress are muted by the crowd. An extremist governor is limited by what a state has the power to do.
We already have that party.
Amazingly enough, we’re about to elect that party. This will please everyone except the loonies who can’t see that Clinton is a 1990’s mid-center Republican. Given that they’ve offered Trump as their choice, their opinions can safely be ignored.
I think I’ve found your problem.
Reported the SPNZ link as spam. (lamynn)
I agree that Trump will probably keel over with a stroke or coronary during the next four years, but he’s not going to end up in obscurity. Why, he’ll be as famous as P.T. Barnum, Emperor Norton, and Huey Long, all rolled up in one orange short-fingered package!
I think there is a good chance this won’t happen. The thing is that I think we’ve reached the point where the extremists are the Republican Party.
The Republican Party, as mentioned before, isn’t going to be in a shambles. They will still hold the House, the odds of the Democrats taking the House are negligible. They’ll still have lots of governors, state houses, and literally thousands of local offices.
The Republican Party will shake Donald Trump’s dust off their heels, and by 2018 Fox News will be putting a (D) after his name.
The first party to ditch the primary process will seize electoral advantage.
The primaries damage your own cause all around. They stir up internal rancor and produce less-electable candidates.
The next viable third party to come up will:
[ul]
[li]ignore evangelicals[/li][li]not attempt grand social justice schemes[/li][li]will not attempt to legislate matters of individual choice[/li][li]will address social justice issues without upending the status quo[/li][li]will eschew batshit ideas like the gold standard or absolutist market-based solutions.[/li][/ul]
I feel like the Democrats could be that party, but they’re kind of beholden to some crazy elements. But I echo those who wish for a “pragmatist party” that could just exist in the middle and get shit done.
Losing by a lot doesn’t mean a party is in shambles. A significant number of members of the party bailing might mean that. Even the anti-Goldwater forces just shut up. And he of course was qualified at least.
Losing is not going to cause conflict. Half the party blaming the other half for the loss might.
Maybe. But they’ve generally learned to put a mainstream face on it. That’s the point of dog whistles.
It depends on whether he gets his supporters to attack the mainstream Republicans to get even, or spends his time on reality shows and selling steaks. His supporters will all say it is the mainstream party’s fault, but will he?
If the RNC stops giving him support, it could be even worse, and by that I mean better.
I dunno, Rubio or Kasich was 3rd this year in the GOP primaries. Either one would be seen as credible in the eyes of moderate voters despite their records being extreme right. This year, we were 3 people away from a possible GOP control of the government. That’s way to close for comfort for my taste.
Every four years the Republican party has less chance at the presidency than they did before. Until they finally manage to completely revamp their platform they are not going to win a presidential election, and that is not going to happen until the Trump demographic is small enough not to control the primaries. They’ll continue to hold the House and fight for the Senate and probably still outnumber democrats in state legislatures so it is hard to say they are in shambles, there just won’t be a GOP president until there is a complete party realignment.
Just a pet peeve of mine, but that’s not what vomitoriums were. That’s a myth.
I am going to go against the grain and say the rabid Trump supporters aren’t going to mean jack squat after this election. They are mostly reliable GOP voters and mostly will stay that way. If the Republicans start getting serious about reaching minority groups, a few of the more racist Trumpists might drop out from participation. But they won’t get to rally around the next racist demagogue. I have no doubt that a) the “establishment” will be much more proactive squashing the next Trump wannabe and b) I have trouble imagining who could fill his crazy celebrity shoes.
The GOP bigwigs are spending billions on down ballot races. Trump will lose, the GOP will not crumble and, in fact, will be stronger.
Republican incumbent Senators who have been cool to Trump, like Portman in Ohio, have opened up nice polling leads. Others, like that idiot Senator Sunspot in Wisconsin, have endorsed Trump and are in trouble. On balance the Democrats have zero chance of taking the House, only a poor to fair chance of taking the Senate, and very little chance of improving their position significantly in state legislatures around the country.
“quashing”. Although “squashing” would certainly be a better way to be sure of it!
I looked it up and by George, you’re correct. But we still have less than three months for Republicans to find a place for Trump-purging their internal organs.
People keep saying this, but it’s not at all clear to me that it’s true. Gerrymandering works by spreading out one party so that it has a narrow majority in many districts while the other party has a large majority in a few districts. But when there’s a shift in voting, those narrow majorities can flip.
When the Democratic candidate for president is leading in states that Democrats don’t usually win, it’s quite possible that many House districts will flip. Maybe it’s a low chance that Democrats take the House. But it’s surely greater than 0%.
For reference, 538’s Polls-Plus gives Hillary a 12% chance of winning the popular vote by 10% or more. That circumstance would flip many narrow-majority districts.