Future of the Republican Party

[lobosrul]

I think you may have a splinter GOP independent candidate regardless of what the GOP leadership does.

Very probably*, however how much the RNC and high ranking republicans support him is the difference. The Trumpites won't see it as a betrayal by the mainstream republicans if he's not supported, or actually who knows maybe they will.

*I'm wondering if that person could be perhaps Mike Huckabee running on the Constitution party ticket.

 

[lobosrul]

There is a third option - Trump confounds his critics and most pundits and becomes President of the United States. Strangely enough this could end up being the most damaging to the GOP because I envisage that Trump will be frustrated by the give-and-take of day to day political deal making and will go down as one of the worst presidents in history.

 

[Mark6]

That was my initial thought. However I have revised it now.

I don't think Trump is an idiot. He is, however, the perfect example of isolationist USA: an enthusiastic and energetic rich son looking to go get more but having never ever been exposed to other ideas and had his own tested.

From what Trump has said so far about foreign policy, I would not call him an isolationist. It's more of a "Roman foreign policy" -- in his mind the rest of the world is supposed to pay tribute and to be grateful for the garrisons.

And no, I do not think this will go down well. But it is not "isolationist" in traditional American sense.

 

[Brainster]

Hinderaker had a pretty good article a few days ago about how the old Reagan coalition is dead:

Ronald Reagan swept to two landslide victories on the strength of his famous three-legged stool—economic conservatism, social conservatism and an internationalist, hawkish foreign policy. But the elements of the Reagan coalition have been drifting apart for some time, and the alliance now appears to be irretrievably fractured.

Hinderaker points out that the problem with tax cuts is that in order to make a deal with the Democrats, you end up reducing the number of taxpayers:

The worm that was in the bud of the tax cuts of the 1980s, as well as those that occurred during the George W. Bush administration, was that every time taxes were cut, the quid pro quo was that the tax code became more progressive. Today, the United States has the most progressive personal tax system of any developed country. There are precious few voters who feel a strong personal interest in lower taxes, and a great many who see federal spending, for them, as a profit center.

And, I would add, there's really not a whole lot of bang left in tax cuts. When Reagan reduced the top marginal rate from 70% to 50%, and then to 28%, you could argue that it eliminated a lot of wasteful tax shelters that did nothing for the economy, and instead freed up a lot of capital for productive investments.

The hawkish foreign policy is also looking pretty dated. Trump, to his credit, saw that there was a way to knit together a new coalition through social conservatism, economic nationalism, bashing Mexican immigrants and Chinese manufacturers. It's not a coalition that appeals to me, but it just might reach enough voters for him to cobble together a win.

 

[DavidJames]

Sounds like Hinderaker is an idiot. Every Republican candidate slobbers while talking tax cuts. Read the papers the Internet, talk radio, TV, Republicans wet their pants about paying the government to much in taxes.

Reagan talked a good game but as much as he delivered on this "three-legged stool", he did things that current Republicans would never think of. He compromised, he worked with Democrats. He signed legislation that current R's would be hanged for even thinking about.

Of course the current R's forget that part of his legacy. To them Reagan is Jesus, but with a brighter halo.

 

[Tero]

I think it's coming to an end. The phoenix will rise from the ashes, without Jesus.

Trump on the other hand, as president, will not help them much. He will remain an outsider. He could be popular if he does this:
https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/tax-reform

 

[Norman Alexander]

From what Trump has said so far about foreign policy, I would not call him an isolationist. It's more of a "Roman foreign policy" -- in his mind the rest of the world is supposed to pay tribute and to be grateful for the garrisons.

And no, I do not think this will go down well. But it is not "isolationist" in traditional American sense.

I considered that as well. But it's more cartoonish than that, I feel.

What we are seeing is the "What is good for America must automatically be good for [insert-country-name-here]" type of thinking. Coupled with that is the classic and alas unapologetic Austria/Australia types of foul-up - no idea what or who or how the rest of the world works and can't even name places without making jokes of it. As a free-wheeling billionaire Trump can travel where he likes, but the responses we are seeing suggest he never has. (GWB was another who had little or no clue what the rest of the world looked like until it was far to late.)

In summary, Trump seems to imbue the view that: "The rest of the world consists of a bunch of tiny places about a hundred miles offshore of the great and wonderful USA where all is good and right and they should all be just like us." That would include Mexico and Canada, hence the "wall" comments. Yeah, it IS that ridiculous.

 

[seayakin]

Hinderaker had a pretty good article a few days ago about how the old Reagan coalition is dead:



Hinderaker points out that the problem with tax cuts is that in order to make a deal with the Democrats, you end up reducing the number of taxpayers:



And, I would add, there's really not a whole lot of bang left in tax cuts. When Reagan reduced the top marginal rate from 70% to 50%, and then to 28%, you could argue that it eliminated a lot of wasteful tax shelters that did nothing for the economy, and instead freed up a lot of capital for productive investments.

The hawkish foreign policy is also looking pretty dated. Trump, to his credit, saw that there was a way to knit together a new coalition through social conservatism, economic nationalism, bashing Mexican immigrants and Chinese manufacturers. It's not a coalition that appeals to me, but it just might reach enough voters for him to cobble together a win.

That was an interesting article. The analysis makes some sense to me.

It seems that if the Democrats were willing to shift to the right on some fiscal issues they could capture much of the center. However, I don't see that happening since Bernie Sanders is pushing them to the left. In another election with a different Democratic candidate, they might push the Democratic party to more centrist positions. However, Hillary has almost as strong a negative rating as Trump among the electorate and does not energize the populists that support Trump or Bernie. Therefore, she does not have the clout with in the Democratic party to push the party in any direction.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

Hillary is straight in middle of the window. Her version of Democratic Party principles pretty much proves the theory. Bernie and Drumph are both trying to push the window around but in opposite directions. It'll average out to an economically centrist Democratic presidency with little tiny baby steps to the left but only on social issues

 

[ponderingturtle]

That was an interesting article. The analysis makes some sense to me.

It seems that if the Democrats were willing to shift to the right on some fiscal issues they could capture much of the center.

They have been for the past 30 years or more. The right just keeps moving more and more to the right to compensate. On Fiscal issues they are certainly on par with Nixon or Reagan.

 

[Beerina]

I think we're up to about the 30th or 40th time at the moment.

 

[dudalb]

From what Trump has said so far about foreign policy, I would not call him an isolationist. It's more of a "Roman foreign policy" -- in his mind the rest of the world is supposed to pay tribute and to be grateful for the garrisons.

And no, I do not think this will go down well. But it is not "isolationist" in traditional American sense.

That is a good description of what Trump thinks,but it's unfair to the Romans,who foreign policy was much more nuanced then that.

 

[dudalb]

Hinderaker had a pretty good article a few days ago about how the old Reagan coalition is dead:



Hinderaker points out that the problem with tax cuts is that in order to make a deal with the Democrats, you end up reducing the number of taxpayers:



And, I would add, there's really not a whole lot of bang left in tax cuts. When Reagan reduced the top marginal rate from 70% to 50%, and then to 28%, you could argue that it eliminated a lot of wasteful tax shelters that did nothing for the economy, and instead freed up a lot of capital for productive investments.

The hawkish foreign policy is also looking pretty dated. Trump, to his credit, saw that there was a way to knit together a new coalition through social conservatism, economic nationalism, bashing Mexican immigrants and Chinese manufacturers. It's not a coalition that appeals to me, but it just might reach enough voters for him to cobble together a win.

That Trump's economic policy would be a disaster for the US is not a big issue?
I debate whether social conservatism will be a big part of Trump's campaign, if you mean issues that are meat to the religious right.
I think he will try to finesse the social issue like Abortion and Gay RIghts.
As for "to his credit" I don't think that using bigotry as a polticial weapon is to anybody's credit,unless you want to adapt a extremely cynical "if it works it;'s right:"attitude toward politics.

 

[Solitaire]

There is a third option - Trump confounds his critics and most pundits and becomes President of the United States. Strangely enough this could end up being the most damaging to the GOP because I envisage that Trump will be frustrated by the give-and-take of day to day political deal making and will go down as one of the worst presidents in history.

Exactly. And I know how it'll be achieved.
Hillary will get anywhere from 270 to 273 electoral votes.
Enough to win, but then the Supreme Court steps in, and BOOM Trump wins.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Isn't that "I cut the board three times and it is still too short" logic?

If this sentiment is true, then republicans are even more retarded than I thought, and that's quite an achievment.

Hum.. they are very retarded, it's part of being a conservative.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

They're nominating a nut-job to run for POTUS and in 6 months Trump is going to look crazier and crazier.

In the meantime all the lily livers are jumping on the Trump band wagon, afraid of their base? I don't know but the number of people willing to speak up and say, that guy's nuts, is shrinking fast.

I predict those aligning themselves with said nut-job are going to be looking pretty stupid in the months to come.

It'll take a while for the GOP to recover from this self-inflicted disaster.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

They're nominating a nut-job to run for POTUS and in 6 months Trump is going to look crazier and crazier.

In the meantime all the lily livers are jumping on the Trump band wagon, afraid of their base? I don't know but the number of people willing to speak up and say, that guy's nuts, is shrinking fast.

I predict those aligning themselves with said nut-job are going to be looking pretty stupid in the months to come.

It'll take a while for the GOP to recover from this self-inflicted disaster.

Have you ever seen a cell dividing in a science video? I suspect that's what the GOP has ahead.

 

[NWO Sentryman]

As White America slowly becomes a minority while other ethnic groups ascend, the former will gravitate more and more towards the GOP, which will contribute to the growing polarisation within the US along ethnic lines. If the last 8 years are anything to go by, this is just the beginning for America going into "fun times".

 

[catsmate]

Well the Abortion Wars are due to start in 2057.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

@OP - For kicks, some predictions:

Trump wins - the Republican Party plays along. Depending on 2018 midterms and policy results, all flee the unmitigated disaster, or the party actually starts to take on a more lunatic stance as a way forward. I hope for the first, but the second could start a slow decline. If so, that eventually would be reversed by a more traditional, rational conservative candidate, the only remaining hope for a win. (So, should I hope for a Trump win and a disastrous presidency? Maybe.)

Trump loses by a hair - worst possible scenario; calls for a recall and all sorts of shenanigans. The R Party's attention is consumed by focus on these attacks, and by the 2018 mid-term, there will be some fear that violence may break out in some polling areas, vigilantes show up to "guarantee no cheating," etc.

Trump loses badly - back to same old fractured party, settling back into old ways. Good-bye, egomaniac. Paul Ryan ascends to the throne.

Trump is not the candidate, brokered convention - the Party splits, and a new rabid something will arise that most certainly will absorb a lot of extremists. Short-lived, but nasty through at least the 2018 election. Neither the new or old parties win a presidential election.

By 2020, fickle voters will have been successfully car-key jingled in yet another direction, as strategists and PR specialists complete their adaptation to a post-Trump world.