What’s next for the GOP?

[Elixir]

Polls are plummeting for the Donald.
33% support, 64% say they they won’t vote for him if nominated. And evidence of the fascist conspiracy has barely begun to come out. Today, a tape came out of Roger Stone talking fake electors scheme before the election…
The smell of fear is strong. And it’s hard to blame them; the monster the GQP created appears ready to devour them.
WHAT WILL THEY DO?
Trying to cheat in any similar way to their 2020 effort is just going to put a bunch more of them in jail.

 

[marc]

Long ago, maybe in the Bush years, I felt the GOP had two paths they could choose from in light of the changing demographics of the country. One was to distance themselves from the racists and crazies in the party. That would hurt them in the short term as it meant alienating a big chunk of their base, but as the party rebuilt they would eventually start winning elections again, assuming it survived that long.

The other path would be to double down on the racism, which would mean relying on gerrymandering and voter suppression to hold onto power as they continued to loose the majority, until a tipping point was reached and they could no longer win elections. At that point the money will stop flowing in, cuz why fund politicians who can't win? and the party will collapse completely.

They are pretty much stuck with option 2 at this point. There are members who want to get rid of the crazies (but probably still don't care about the racists), but few who will openly stand up for that as they know they will likely get primarried out next election. They barely speak out against Trump, let alone the BS the base thrives on.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Long ago, maybe in the Bush years, I felt the GOP had two paths they could choose from in light of the changing demographics of the country. One was to distance themselves from the racists and crazies in the party. That would hurt them in the short term as it meant alienating a big chunk of their base, but as the party rebuilt they would eventually start winning elections again, assuming it survived that long.

Michael Medved was talking about this I believe in 2012 after losing. He was leaning towards what you were saying. I don't think he is one conservative talk radio anymore. They lost 2012 and went batshit insane.

The other path would be to double down on the racism, which would mean relying on gerrymandering and voter suppression to hold onto power as they continued to loose the majority, until a tipping point was reached and they could no longer win elections. At that point the money will stop flowing in, cuz why fund politicians who can't win? and the party will collapse completely.

Except they gerrymandered the states. The GOP control so many states because of the ACA and 2010 blood bath.

Impossible to tell where the GOP goes from here. The party became a hyper-partisan party during Obama and under Trump, the minority of the GOP just hijacked it and steered it to a completely void platform (other than tax cuts and appointing radical conservative judges). This path was started in the 60s by Nixon and has seemingly become a movement that has taken over and no one is at the wheel now.

 

[Politesse]

Hopefully extinction is an option. With the mainline Democrats largely embracing what used to be the Republican platform before t h e d a r k t i m e s, and Progressives increasingly tugging at the leash, there will still be room for the classic American political dichotomy to re-form.

I know, such optimism isn't really warranted by our times. But until Trump and his yahoos successfully storm the Capitol grounds and rip it all to shreds, this crazy chicx is going to hold out hope for the reconstruction of a democratic republic from all this mess. The first and last time we had to rebuild this government, we had even less pieces and no peace to do it with.

 

[marc]

Except they gerrymandered the states. The GOP control so many states because of the ACA and 2010 blood bath.

The shifting demographics and the party going down the racist/conspiracy theorist rabbit hole would eventually overcome the gerrymandering in many states. Some would be able to hold indefinitely, except for two possibilities. One being if democrats finally did something federally to undo the gerrymandering. The other is the money. If they can't hold enough power in the states to give them influence in Congress, then the big donor money will dry up. There are already a couple state GOP organizations that are going bankrupt, Minnesota, Arizona and Michigan so far. They might become a minority party even in the red states as the money people either try to form a new party, or increase influence with democrats.

 

[Elixir]

If they can't hold enough power in the states to give them influence in Congress, then the big donor money will dry up.

Yup. Money is a chickenshit. It normally runs away at the first sign of trouble. But now, it has let a bloated demagogue get “too big to fail”, and when the money is finally forced to abandon ship, it’s going to hurt a lot. Even small donations, which skyrocketed after the first indictment, have flatlined since. Now the reckoning draws nigh, and Cheato is down to only 33% of the electorate with which to hold the money people hostage. At some point they’re going to figure they‘re throwing good money after bad, and pull the plug.

 

[Politesse]

Except they gerrymandered the states. The GOP control so many states because of the ACA and 2010 blood bath.

The shifting demographics and the party going down the racist/conspiracy theorist rabbit hole would eventually overcome the gerrymandering in many states. Some would be able to hold indefinitely, except for two possibilities. One being if democrats finally did something federally to undo the gerrymandering. The other is the money. If they can't hold enough power in the states to give them influence in Congress, then the big donor money will dry up. There are already a couple state GOP organizations that are going bankrupt, Minnesota, Arizona and Michigan so far. They might become a minority party even in the red states as the money people either try to form a new party, or increase influence with democrats.

They spend the money they do have poorly, too. Trumpers as a whole are famously wasteful and inefficient campaign spenders, overpaying for nearly every race they're in. Not to mention their legal pains. Look how much big donor money they're sending after fighting doomed legal cases all around the country, whereas silver-spooned Democrats can just throw their political donation money at elections. Trump alone has dropped 60 million on lawyers and fees in two years, much of it donated money, and this year will have an even higher price tag. While the media like to paint parallels between our two big court scandal-magnets, one important difference with Hunter Biden is that no one but his immediate family feels compelled to help the little shit.

 

[bilby]

Trump alone has dropped 60 million on lawyers and fees in two years, much of it donated money, and this year will have an even higher price tag.

When those lawyers are your cronies, and/or are kicking some of that money back to you personally, this is not a bug, but a feature.

How else would you personally enrich yourself and your cronies at the expense of political donors, without exposing yourself to accusations of misappropriation of those political donations?

It's a neat scam.

 

[TomC]

are plummeting for the Donald.
33% support, 64% say they they won’t vote for him if nominated.

I gotta say,
I find this sort of poll watching both distasteful and even dangerous.

I can't help but remember just how far ahead Hillary was in the polls. Right up until the exit polling started.

I honestly believe she'd have been elected in 2016 had not so many democrats assumed she was going to win, so they didn't bother turning out. And her campaign staff put so much effort into flipping purple states instead of keeping "safe" states(like Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania) on board.
Tom

 

[Elixir]

I honestly believe she'd have been elected in 2016 had not so many democrats assumed she was going to win, so they didn't bother turning out.

So far we have no bitter Bernie Bros in this cycle. I’m not confident, but am increasingly optimistic.

 

[TomC]

I honestly believe she'd have been elected in 2016 had not so many democrats assumed she was going to win, so they didn't bother turning out.

So far we have no bitter Bernie Bros in this cycle. I’m not confident, but am increasingly optimistic.

While Bernie and the BernieBros were decidedly a factor, I think it was broader than that. Overall turnout for that election was really low.

The Trumpists were more energized, David against Goliath. Fight for Make America Great Again!
Democrats assumed that, obviously, Hillary would win. So they did other stuff on election day. Somebody else would vote her in, all the polls say so...
Tom

 

[Elixir]

While Bernie and the BernieBros were decidedly a factor, I think it was broader than that. Overall turnout for that election was really low.

The Trumpists were more energized, David against Goliath. Fight for Make America Great Again!
Democrats assumed that, obviously, Hillary would win. So they did other stuff on election day. Somebody else would vote her in, all the polls say so...

And? That all would lend to optimism; people who were ambivalent last time are totally alarmed about the Scourge. Trumpists are having to work harder and harder to maintain their hysteria, and “the base” is waning, not gaining. The turnout advantage is gone. For the GQP, it’s all over but the cheatin’.
(Not to discount their ability to cheat)

 

[TomC]

That all would lend to optimism; people who were ambivalent last time are totally alarmed about the Scourge.

You keep kinda skipping over my reason for starting this chain of thought.

I gotta say,
I find this sort of poll watching both distasteful and even dangerous.

I still do.
I don't care what people say that they'll do come next November.
Tom

 

[Elixir]

What polls do has nothing to do with what I’ll do. I have voted for known losers, and will continue to vote for whoever strikes me as best. I was taught that participation qualifies you to complain.

 

[TomC]

What polls do has nothing to do with what I’ll do. I have voted for known losers, and will continue to vote for whoever strikes me as best. I was taught that participation qualifies you to complain.

I agree.
I still think that talking about the elections like they're a sporting competition or a betting proposition is distasteful and dangerous.
Tom

 

[Elixir]

What polls do has nothing to do with what I’ll do. I have voted for known losers, and will continue to vote for whoever strikes me as best. I was taught that participation qualifies you to complain.

I agree.
I still think that talking about the elections like they're a sporting competition or a betting proposition is distasteful and dangerous.
Tom

Being vested in an outcome as part of the process isn’t necessarily a bad thing.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

are plummeting for the Donald.
33% support, 64% say they they won’t vote for him if nominated.

I gotta say,
I find this sort of poll watching both distasteful and even dangerous.

I can't help but remember just how far ahead Hillary was in the polls. Right up until the exit polling started.

I honestly believe she'd have been elected in 2016 had not so many democrats assumed she was going to win, so they didn't bother turning out. And her campaign staff put so much effort into flipping purple states instead of keeping "safe" states(like Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania) on board.
Tom

I think Clinton would have won if people actually understood Trump could actually win. That the Republicans would literally vote for anyone. That the evangelicals would support him full heartedly.

I wasn't aware of any of that. Most weren't. Moore was right though.

 

[hyzer]

I can’t comment on the polls and Hillary’s lead. But I will comment that a large percentage of voters never forgave Hillary for forgiving Bill. So they didn’t vote for her. Did the polls miss that? Don’t know.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I can’t comment on the polls and Hillary’s lead. But I will comment that a large percentage of voters never forgave Hillary for forgiving Bill. So they didn’t vote for her. Did the polls miss that? Don’t know.

The polls for Hillary showed her leading, but with less than 50%. That was the difference with her and Biden, Biden was leading with 50+%. Trump managed to avoid every consequence to every mistake he made. And of course, there was always the last second announcement from Comey about the investigation and fake news that the FBI was about to indict over the Clinton Organization.

 

[Politesse]

A significant number of people never forgave Hillary for being a woman at all. And that's not necessarily something you admit to a pollster.... especially if you are a political "liberal".