How Will Trump Change the Republican Party?

[newyorkguy]

In the years ahead, how will the emergence of Donald Trump as a 'leading' Republican voice, change the party? Or will he have any lasting effect on Republican policies and beliefs? Some think he will.

The convention left little doubt over the depth of opposition to trade pacts, once a central tenet of Republican philosophy, or to easing the path for immigrants who want to become citizens, policies that President George W. Bush, a Republican, championed when he was in office. One by one, Mr. Trump, a businessman, has rejected core principles embraced by every Republican president since Richard M. Nixon...The longtime intraparty alliance between disaffected blue-collar whites and the wealthy is unraveling; Mr. Trump seized on that change and personified it. Link to New York Times article

Others think Trump's influence will be short-lived. They envision Trump losing badly in the November election, taking many Republicans down with him and then washing his hands of the whole affair as he has routinely done with other unsuccessful ventures. (e.g. Atlantic City, the airline, the pro football team.)

Political shifts are notoriously difficult to predict, even when they do not involve the mercurial Mr. Trump, and it is unclear what might happen if he loses. Would he give up on politics? Would his supporters who are new to politics fade away, discouraged by the experience? Are there political leaders who could pick up his mantle? Has he built enough support for his anti-trade and tough immigration positions that they would live on in the party platform without him?

Guess we have to wait and see.

 

[Tony Stark]

Well the Hispanic vote will probably be lost for the foreseeable future.

 

[newyorkguy]

What's really ironic is, Trump has already cost the Republican Party some of its traditional support from the corporate world. I wonder if that will be longterm? For one thing, most major American banks have Trump redlined: he's considered a credit risk. Does anyone think a banker wants to see a guy he won't lend money to elected President?

 

[Denver]

When he loses, this whole debacle will make the next GOP presidential candidates look like the best ones ever, and unite their voters like never before.

 

[Civet]

One of my fears is that Trump's success in winning the nomination will lead to Republican hopefuls mimicking Trump's style in primary races going forth. Not just in presidential elections, but also in House and Senate races. This could happen even if he loses the general election.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

Noise has been rattled about the news and opinions world for decades that the Republican Party was due for some kind of major cell division event, due to internal tensions created by the Big Tent model.

 

[newyorkguy]

The longtime intraparty alliance between disaffected blue-collar whites and the wealthy is unraveling; Mr. Trump seized on that change and personified it.

In some ways, this is probably the real ticking timebomb for the Republican Party. You could argue that Trump's positions are essentially those of a conservative Democrat from the 1970s. And Republicans do argue that, or at least insist Trump is not a conservative, doesn't comprehend conservatism and doesn't support it either. That his positions are really just anti-Democratic reactionary. Didn't he even come out at one point for a single-payer healthcare system, saying that would be preferable to Obamacare?

I agree the two factions emerging within the Republican Party are so diametrically opposed we could be on the brink of seeing a seismic shift on what being a Republican will mean.

 

[ehcks]

When he loses, this whole debacle will make the next GOP presidential candidates look like the best ones ever, and unite their voters like never before.

The same way they did with George Bush, and Sarah Palin, and Mitt Romney?

Somehow to people who aren't members of the GOP, they seem to get a crazier candidate every cycle. I fear next time will be even worse than Trump.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

When he loses, this whole debacle will make the next GOP presidential candidates look like the best ones ever, and unite their voters like never before.

We already predicted this about them after the last couple of clown cars, but this time the best and brightest were a bunch of old, tired looking white guys, and a cute Cuban guy who coulda wiped the floor with them if he had anything but a bible to stand upon.

The fact that the Best Ones Yet were destroyed by a used car salesman rodeo clown says very poor things about the state of the GOP at some deep, central level. They, the candidates and the party generally, were fractious, disorganized, either too busy hot gluing picture of Jesus to everything or too busy trying to figure out how to make a buck off the deal to actually mount an organized campaign.

Campaigns cost money; money pays for campaigns. And then trump came along and ran his mouth to keep his name in the news, like a chess or card player taking command of gameplay and making opponents always respond, never get to move their own strategy forward. Apparently not one of the campaigns had enough meat behind it, enough skill and experience in campaign strategy and political chess, to see, understand, respond, retake command of the narrative and pull back ahead.

 

[Denver]

...Apparently not one of the campaigns had enough meat behind it, enough skill and experience in campaign strategy and political chess, to see, understand, respond, retake command of the narrative and pull back ahead.

They just could not believe he would make it this far. I don't think they'll make the same mistake next time.

 

[aleCcowaN]

I think the question in the OP will be answered strikingly different depending on whether Trump wins the election (not such a slim chance as many think) or not.

The likelihood of Trump becoming president doesn't depend much on what has been said and done (or will be said and done) during the campaign nor the ideological state of supporters of both major parties and independents. It will be a sum or marginal effects involving the quality of the professionally driven campaign and some events like bombings and shootings around the date of the election. Finally, moderated Republican and Republican-leaning independents will decide it: either by voting Trump or by voting Clinton instead, as if they were swallowing a spoonful of castor oil, just to avoid such orange soulsore to cease power.

For me, the most likely and worse scenario for GOP and country is Trump losing by 1% and one swinging state. In such case, Trump would become the leader of a cultural change within the GOP, even if he quits political activities. Harmonious coexistence in Congress would become extremely difficult, as hardware stores close to Republican committees will run out of spanners (monkey wrenches) very soon.

The less likely outcome, Trump losing badly (by a difference of 7 or 8%), which might imply losing the majority in the Senate, would strengthen the moderates and serious ones within the party, and enhance the chance of the party to win in 2020, then without Trumpian candidates.

And there's the not unlikely chance of Trump becoming the next POTUS. Well, it would be nice to watch the whole film sitting on a comfortable coach placed on the Moon. A greyish government, with third-rate secretaries (people without political experience or moving in the background of politics), Trump trying to co-opt Democrats and signing political deals. An international policy which departs from USA being a heavy player and negotiating deals country by country based on weight. Confusion, capital avoiding investments, foreign capital going away. Even a probable conflict with the Federal Reserve. I would like Trump to win just to see what happens. You hardly have the chance to throw a stone and break a billion glasses at the same time. It would be very entertaining.

 

[Meadmaker]

In my optimistic view of things, Trump will get trounced and this will cause a group of Republicans to get together and make a strong, concerted, push to separate themselves from the crazy wing of their party. This has parallels in the Democratic Party of the 1980s. A group of moderate Democrats, including Bill Clinton* and Al Gore, got together and formed the Democratic Leadership Committee (or was it Council?), and took the party back from the radical left. The Republicans need a Sister Solja moment.

My pessimistic view is that Donald will win the election, and I don't even want to think about what the Republican Party would look like with a successful Donald Trump at its head.


*It cracks me up when Republicans act like Bill Clinton was or is some sort of ultra-leftist.

 

[Mumbles]

My deep hope is that he will destroy the Republican party as it is today.

I'll agree that we need at least two parties, and that two is the optimal number under the US system. but what the GOP stands for today can go. The birtherism, the hatred of LGBT folks, the money going to police or vigilantes who murder black people simply because they're black, the rage at Hispanic people...I want all of that nonsense to be wiped out.

My fear is that, in 2020, we'll get someone with the same bigotries as Trump, but a better politician, to head the GOP, and he'll win two terms. That would be a disaster.

 

[Craig4]

What the GOP will try to do is recruit high profile business people we aren't crazy to run in four years. I suspect that the GOP (and the Dems, they narrowly avoided nominating someone incapable of governing too) will look at outsiders who are just outside enough that they aren't out of their minds.

 

[Ladewig]

Well, if Trump wins, all his followers will point at the anti-Trumps and accuse them of abandoning the party. And if Trump loses all the anti-Trump people will point their fingers at the pro-Trump people and accuse them of abandoning the party. I cannot predict what will rise from this ideological schism, but there is no doubt that it will have to be dealt with by The 2020 candidates.

 

[thaiboxerken]

When he loses, this whole debacle will make the next GOP presidential candidates look like the best ones ever, and unite their voters like never before.

When he loses, they will convince themselves that they need to get someone even more extreme.

 

[Emma Thompsom]

Hmm, It's a difficult math.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

I'd love to think there will be a backlash but I suspect he's just stretched the overton window - white supremacy and incoherent, hateful demagougery will now be acceptable parts of public discourse.

 

[Foolmewunz]

What the GOP will try to do is recruit high profile business people we aren't crazy to run in four years. I suspect that the GOP (and the Dems, they narrowly avoided nominating someone incapable of governing too) will look at outsiders who are just outside enough that they aren't out of their minds.

I'd say if Trump wins, you might see a lot of this coming in four years in state races, and even more so in eight when it's time to go for a new presidential election. If he loses? The biggest names in business-to-politics will be losers... Forbes, Perot, Trump. I think people will run from nominating psycho CEOs.

Well, if Trump wins, all his followers will point at the anti-Trumps and accuse them of abandoning the party. And if Trump loses all the anti-Trump people will point their fingers at the pro-Trump people and accuse them of abandoning the party. I cannot predict what will rise from this ideological schism, but there is no doubt that it will have to be dealt with by The 2020 candidates.

The scenario is probably more like "when he loses" they will continue to cannibalize themselves, each certain that the other faction sold them out and caused the loss. See below.

When he loses, they will convince themselves that they need to get someone even more extreme.

See above. As most of us recall, they were barely two hours into the post mortem and a few conservative pundits were ascribing their long term problems to the creeping demographics changes. All kinds of cross-discussion on Fox about how to appeal, for instance, to a naturally conservative demographic, the Hispanic voter. That didn't even last the evening before someone came out presaging their current platform of **** the hispanics, we need more angry old white men and need to whip up some new angry YOUNG white men.

As insane as losing twice in a row with that strategy sounds, they are quite capable of doing it again. Their hubris knows no bounds. They still look at the demographics and think like George Wallace.... Surely every red-blooded American White Person is going to vote for us. Every time you think Trump can't get stupider, remember that Roger Stone, Jeff Sessions, Manafort and others are saying "No... not enough Latino/Muslim bashing. Needs more cowbell. There's a guy in a culvert in Montana who's still not buying in."

Hmm, It's a difficult math.

Welcome to the forums, Emma. Waded straight into politics, did you? You're either very brave, very dedicated or very suicidal.

 

[newyorkguy]

This is what I am curious to see unravel.

The longtime intraparty alliance between disaffected blue-collar whites and the wealthy is unraveling; Mr. Trump seized on that change and personified it.

It never made a lot of sense to me -- a coalition of blue-collar workers and the wealthy -- other than the fact, you trace it back to Nixon's Southern strategy. Blue collar whites who were greatly put off by the Civil Rights movement and the way the Democratic Party supported it. Then it only got worse. Women's Lib, Gay rights, same sex marriage. They took refuge in the Republican Party. But as working people, the Republicans never had their back. Only now Trump is changing that. He's remaking the Republican Party as pro-working class, anti-free trade, anti-Wall Street. I can't see this working for the corporate people who are traditional Republicans. I can't see them accepting this. If they fight back they may risk alienating the blue collar Reagan Republicans.

Some good may come of this yet!

The only way for the Republicans to maintain this coalition, the only way that I can see, is to overhaul the Party's policies. How they will do that I will be very interested to see. I agree with Meadmaker, I think they would have to moderate the party's policies the way the Democrats did in the 1990s.