Future of the Republican Party

[seayakin]

I do not intend this as a thread about the presidential election so I'm posting it here. However, with Donald Trump as the presumptive nominee, what will the future of the Republican party be like. I'm confident they will continue to exist but will their platform and policies changed significantly or will Trump be a blip for this year and the party will continue as it has for the last 16 years?

There are, of course, lots of news articles such as Republican Party Unravels Over Donald's Trump Takeover or The End of the Republican Party.

I'll have to say i'm nonplussed about the future of the GOP. It seems there is some conflict between libertarians, social/religious conservatives, and traditionalists. Will Donald convince any group to break off to form or join a third party?

I'm sure after the election, there will be a lot of detailed analysis going on. Obviously, whether the Donald wins or loses also impacts the future of the party. I'm betting he will lose but I don't want to assume it's a sure thing. Personally, I waffle in my opinion about the future direction of the party but I am confident it will continue to exist. My guess would be that they will shed some of the social conservatives (bathroom bills,etc.) but hold on to the planks related to fiscal restraint and government spending. It is my opinion, that the social conservative issues appeal to an increasingly smaller demographic. Look at how the younger generation views gay marriage (Pew Research). However, fiscal conservatism appeals to their traditional base and a broader spectrum of the voting public. Here is a Washington Post Opinion Poll on government spending.

 

[dudalb]

The Political Cartoonists are having a field day with the GOP split,with cartoon parodies of the "Captain America:Civil War" ads about the "GOP:Civil War".

 

[DavidJames]

I do not intend this as a thread about the presidential election so I'm posting it here. However, with Donald Trump as the presumptive nominee, what will the future of the Republican party be like. I'm confident they will continue to exist but will their platform and policies changed significantly or will Trump be a blip for this year and the party will continue as it has for the last 16 years?

There are, of course, lots of news articles such as Republican Party Unravels Over Donald's Trump Takeover or The End of the Republican Party.

I'll have to say i'm nonplussed about the future of the GOP. It seems there is some conflict between libertarians, social/religious conservatives, and traditionalists. Will Donald convince any group to break off to form or join a third party?

I'm sure after the election, there will be a lot of detailed analysis going on. Obviously, whether the Donald wins or loses also impacts the future of the party. I'm betting he will lose but I don't want to assume it's a sure thing. Personally, I waffle in my opinion about the future direction of the party but I am confident it will continue to exist. My guess would be that they will shed some of the social conservatives (bathroom bills,etc.) but hold on to the planks related to fiscal restraint and government spending. It is my opinion, that the social conservative issues appeal to an increasingly smaller demographic. Look at how the younger generation views gay marriage (Pew Research). However, fiscal conservatism appeals to their traditional base and a broader spectrum of the voting public. Here is a Washington Post Opinion Poll on government spending.

The Republican response will be the same as it was the last two elections. They didn't run someone conservative enough*

No, they won't shed some of the social conservatives, while it may be shrinking it's still their bread and butter, if they lose them they will fade into obscurity.

No, they are not the party of fiscal responsibility. Specifically, point to a Republican congress or president as evidence.

*There is a chance they will say this time they didn't nominate someone bat **** crazy enough.

 

[seayakin]

No, they are not the party of fiscal responsibility. Specifically, point to a Republican congress or president as evidence.

I want to clarify. I was not arguing about whether they are truly the party of fiscal responsibility only that is one of their talking point and central to their platform and important to the constituency.

Personally, I'm a liberal so I agree they do not practice what they preach.

 

[lobosrul]

I see two possibilities:

1) Trump gets the nom, and the party leaders don't really support him, nor do they actively fight him. HRC wins 2016 easily, but she is then defeated in 2020 by a more moderate, more likable candidate. Paul Ryan* is the most likely IMO. Remember neither party has been in the White House for more than 3 consecutive terms in over 60 years.

2) They actively try and do an end run to defeat Trump. Another GOP candidate runs as an independent to try and prevent anyone from getting 270 electoral votes. This fails, miserably, and it permanently splits the GOP.

*Look at some of the things he's said in the last few months. Either he really is more moderate than during his 2012 VP run, or he's positioning himself to be so.

 

[malbec]

I want to clarify. I was not arguing about whether they are truly the party of fiscal responsibility only that is one of their talking point and central to their platform and important to the constituency.

Personally, I'm a liberal so I agree they do not practice what they preach.

And that other party does ?

Remind me of the current debt both Official and the same but with Other Obligations added .
How has Obama contributed to that grand total which probably exceeds $200 trillion ?
And -- to get to the heart of it -- what suggests there is a great difference between the two parties ?

 

[seayakin]

And that other party does ?

Remind me of the current debt both Official and the same but with Other Obligations added .
How has Obama contributed to that grand total which probably exceeds $200 trillion ?
And -- to get to the heart of it -- what suggests there is a great difference between the two parties ?

I didn't start this thread to argue about which party is more fiscally conservative.

Do you think the Republican party will change dramatically? Do you think it will be a more nuanced change? Or, nothing changes.

 

[C_Felix]

I have a feeling the Libertarians are going to see a spike in numbers - and assume the position of the extreme Republican stance.

The rest of the Republicans will become a centerist party.

Then those who jumped ship to the Libertarians will be unhappy about the Libertarians not wanting Jesus/the Bible to run the party, so they will bail on the Libertarians and the fracturing will continue.

 

[Dr. Keith]

I have a feeling the Libertarians are going to see a spike in numbers - and assume the position of the extreme Republican stance.

The rest of the Republicans will become a centerist party.

Then those who jumped ship to the Libertarians will be unhappy about the Libertarians not wanting Jesus/the Bible to run the party, so they will bail on the Libertarians and the fracturing will continue.

Fractal fracturing?

Could be interesting.

 

[Ladewig]

I'll have to say i'm nonplussed about the future of the GOP. It seems there is some conflict between libertarians, social/religious conservatives, and traditionalists.

What is nonplussing about fractures in a party that you, yourself, describe as a collection of "libertarians, social/religious conservatives, and traditionalists" (and TeaPartiers)? Last year it took Republicans in the House four weeks to elect a leader.

The Republican response will be the same as it was the last two elections. They didn't run someone conservative enough*

I hope not. The current candidate is proposing to ban Muslims from entering the country. The next step is to require them to sew yellow crescents on their clothing so we can identify them in public.

 

[Ambrosia]

Fractal fracturing?

If the GOP could go full Mandelbrot then please. I live in the UK so am a 'mere' interested observer, but I'm interested because what happens in the US effects policies and politics here too.

From where I'm sitting Trump is either going to be the best thing that happened to the GOP (because he'll shatter it into a million bits) or the worst thing (because he'll get elected on basically a Tea Party platform)

It's really hard to tell which way the actual election will go.

It seems quite sad to me that in a country of 300millionish people the 2 best people you could find to run the country were a billionaire idiot and the wife of a former POTUS.

 

[seayakin]

What is nonplussing about fractures in a party that you, yourself, describe as a collection of "libertarians, social/religious conservatives, and traditionalists" (and TeaPartiers)? Last year it took Republicans in the House four weeks to elect a leader.




I hope not. The current candidate is proposing to ban Muslims from entering the country. The next step is to require them to sew yellow crescents on their clothing so we can identify them in public.

I think I'm uncertain about what direction they will head. It's not surprising as you say but to me there is no clear path where they will head or if Trump will be simply an anomalie and they continue with the divisions that they have had.

Sent from my Nexus 9 using Tapatalk

 

[Norman Alexander]

It seems quite sad to me that in a country of 300millionish people the 2 best people you could find to run the country were a billionaire idiot and the wife of a former POTUS.

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. He simply thinks this is the way things work in the world - he knows no other. He does not (yet) understand why others would even disagree with him because they never have before. He thinks he is worthy of being a leader among men - he lives the lifestyle and (some) people respond to his exhortations positively. His self-belief is as yet barely dented. The issues will arise when his total lack of external experience bumps up against harsh realities. I suspect he will get eaten alive.

Hillary is not a "wife of a POTUS". She is no idiot, and was more than likely part of the "POTUS team" when Bill was incumbent. She has also had experience in the Whitehouse outside of her family, in Obama's cabinet. She and Obama watched the Bin Laden raid live - that must have been sobering for anyone. So she has a wealth of experience in and near the Whitehouse to draw on. Has she made mistakes along the way? Certainly, but who in politics hasn't. Even Obama is not without shortfalls, faults and errors, some glaring.

As to how this will affect the Republican party, there are two points.

First, Trump will divide the party into more mainstream and the fascist extremes. Maybe the party will split membership, with the Tea Partiers and extreme religious fascists going one way, and the more pragmatic center-leaners the other. That will divide its impact numerically, but then the centrists may well pick up fall-offs from the Democrats who are not entirely in tune with "socialist" policies like Sanders espouses. That is, there will be a drift to the centre from both parties.

Second, politics in the USA will tend more centrist anyway. The two parties may end up being much closer in political offerings. A slightly reddish blue party and a slightly blueish red party.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

It depends if Trump loses the election, which he should if this country hasn't lost its mind. The GOP will recover, and hopefully they'll stop campaigning so hard using the tactic of government is bad.

 

[The Don]

I see two possibilities:

1) Trump gets the nom, and the party leaders don't really support him, nor do they actively fight him. HRC wins 2016 easily, but she is then defeated in 2020 by a more moderate, more likable candidate. Paul Ryan* is the most likely IMO. Remember neither party has been in the White House for more than 3 consecutive terms in over 60 years.

2) They actively try and do an end run to defeat Trump. Another GOP candidate runs as an independent to try and prevent anyone from getting 270 electoral votes. This fails, miserably, and it permanently splits the GOP.

*Look at some of the things he's said in the last few months. Either he really is more moderate than during his 2012 VP run, or he's positioning himself to be so.

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.

 

[Mader Levap]

The Republican response will be the same as it was the last two elections. They didn't run someone conservative enough.

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.

 

[ponderingturtle]

What is nonplussing about fractures in a party that you, yourself, describe as a collection of "libertarians, social/religious conservatives, and traditionalists" (and TeaPartiers)? Last year it took Republicans in the House four weeks to elect a leader.

That was because no one wanted the job.

 

[The Don]

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

Not necessarily.....

The rightwingers in the GOP could look at McCain and Romney and say to themselves that they were RINO (at least from their perspective) and they were far too close to their Democratic Party opponent on too many issues. This meant that a huge* number of patriotic Americans were left with no-one they could, in all conscience, vote for and so either didn't vote at all or voted for a third party candidate.

The centrist votes they were attempting to get went to the Muslim-Atheist-Communist-Kenyan in any case but their pandering meant that they missed out on a swathe of "right minded" people.

Had they chosen a suitable candidate then that candidate would have attracted all the votes that McCain or Romney got PLUS the huge* number or people who didn't vote or voted for a third party. That candidate would doubtless then have romped to victory and demonstrated that what the American people want is a God-fearing, gun-toting, foetus-respecting, gay-hating, small government loving leader who can make America great again.

Any failure to get elected merely demonstrates that the candidate was insufficiently right-wing to capture that huge* key demographic


* - for certain small values of huge

 

[dudalb]

I see two possibilities:

1) Trump gets the nom, and the party leaders don't really support him, nor do they actively fight him. HRC wins 2016 easily, but she is then defeated in 2020 by a more moderate, more likable candidate. Paul Ryan* is the most likely IMO. Remember neither party has been in the White House for more than 3 consecutive terms in over 60 years.

2) They actively try and do an end run to defeat Trump. Another GOP candidate runs as an independent to try and prevent anyone from getting 270 electoral votes. This fails, miserably, and it permanently splits the GOP.

*Look at some of the things he's said in the last few months. Either he really is more moderate than during his 2012 VP run, or he's positioning himself to be so.

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

 

[dudalb]

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.

Hell, we could have the first successful Impeachment and Conviction of a President in US history if Trump becomes President.