Why are Republicans okay with annointment, but Democrats aren't?

[Rhea]

from https://electoral-vote.com/

In 2016, the DNC was accused of being biased for one of the candidates (Hillary Clinton) over the others. Wouldn't this be much, much worse of a problem if the Trump campaign is actually running the RNC? Wouldn't this be a huge issue if anyone decides to primary him? M.G., Madison, WI

As noted in the item above, the answer is: absolutely. The change to the RNC, and the one to the South Carolina primary, make the already-monumental task of knocking off Trump nearly impossible for a would-be GOP nominee unless the Mueller report was so devastating that even Republicans thought Trump has to go.

An interesting question is: Why are Republican voters apparently OK with their party manipulating things in this way, while Democrats clearly are not? That is a very difficult question to answer; all we can do is offer a few theories:

Your average Republican is more used to accepting marching orders from people in authority (military officers, religious leaders, etc.) than your average Democrat is

The Republican Party is more homogeneous than the Democratic Party, and it is easier for them to unify behind one candidate

Anti-authority Democrats remain engaged in the political system and support rebels like Bernie Sanders, anti-authority Republicans ignore the political system and/or do things like join militia groups

The Republican rank-and-file dislikes stuff like this as much as the Democratic rank-and-file, but Republican leaders are more comfortable ignoring their supporters' feelings, knowing they will fall into line in the end

The South, having been under one-party rule for nearly 200 years, is more comfortable with letting that one party (whichever party it might be) call all the shots

The Democrats have more people who are educated, more people who came from other (less-than-stellar) countries, more people who have felt the weight of oppression, and so in all three cases more people who are aware of the dangers of allowing authority figures to have too much power

Voters are ok with their party giving an incumbent president an easy path, but not a non-incumbent.
Note that all of this is just spitballing; it would take a very good political scientist many years to come up with a solid conclusion, supported with evidence

I think he has several good possibilities. What do you think? Why are republicans just rolling over at Trump campaign coup and SC's antics?

 

[J842P]

The last decade has been essentially a huge coup against the establishment Republicans, first with the Tea Party which was extremely successful, and afterwards with Trump. Saying that Republican voters are "more ok with it" is not really evidenced by anything. Is there at least a poll or something?

 

[Derec]

Democrats were perfectly fine to anoint Hillary in 2016. It took an outsider, Sanders, to tilt at that particular windmill, albeit unsuccessfully.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

I didn't know the Tea Party was successful. I thought the Republicans successfully subverted, neutralized, and then reabsorbed them.

Did you know the first Tea Party event happened in 2007?

 

[Rhea]

The last decade has been essentially a huge coup against the establishment Republicans, first with the Tea Party which was extremely successful, and afterwards with Trump. Saying that Republican voters are "more ok with it" is not really evidenced by anything. Is there at least a poll or something?

No, I don’t think there’s a poll. The premise in the article is that Democrats made a big stink about Clinton getting what they considered systematic advantages. They made a very big stink indeed. And no, Derec, it was not outsiders making the stink. Bernie was an outsider but the people who made the stink were Democrats.

Meanwhile looking comparatively at the voices of Republicans making a stink about either the Trump Capmpaign taking over the RNC or the choices of SC to not even have a primary (!) there is not a stink to be seen.

So that was the premise of the statement that is in the article. I have not verified it, nor am I married to the claim. So if you have a different view I am listening. But I did fell like the differences noted seemed to match what’s in the news, and hence I thought the topic interesting.

 

[Rhea]

I didn't know the Tea Party was successful. I thought the Republicans successfully subverted, neutralized, and then reabsorbed them.

Did you know the first Tea Party event happened in 2007?

I don’t think neutralized is what we saw in their results. The tea partiers (“Freedom Caucus”) suvessfully blocked legislation, made demands, got them, primaried incumbents, beat them... And they still have a great deal of power to subvert the GOP message. You disagree?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I didn't know the Tea Party was successful. I thought the Republicans successfully subverted, neutralized, and then reabsorbed them.

Did you know the first Tea Party event happened in 2007?

Disagree. The Tea Party was a false flag movement to bring the financial conservatives into the GOP. Thus their merging into the GOP was not subversion but by design.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

I didn't know the Tea Party was successful. I thought the Republicans successfully subverted, neutralized, and then reabsorbed them.

Did you know the first Tea Party event happened in 2007?

I don’t think neutralized is what we saw in their results. The tea partiers (“Freedom Caucus”) suvessfully blocked legislation, made demands, got them, primaried incumbents, beat them... And they still have a great deal of power to subvert the GOP message. You disagree?

For a brief while. A few years. Then it was business as usual. There's no way a successful Tea Party movement would have allowed the nomination of Romney.

I didn't know the Tea Party was successful. I thought the Republicans successfully subverted, neutralized, and then reabsorbed them.

Did you know the first Tea Party event happened in 2007?

Disagree. The Tea Party was a false flag movement to bring the financial conservatives into the GOP. Thus their merging into the GOP was not subversion but by design.

The Tea Party of 2007 and 2008 was not. It was promptly astroturfed into everything you say in January 2009. Something significant happened November 5, 2007, and something else significant happened on January 20th, 2009. Those two dates show a starkly different Tea Party.

You remember January 20, 2009? It is the day the anti-war movement died.

 

[lpetrich]

Rhea quoted some interesting theories in her OP. Related to them must be the behavior of the Never Trumpers. As he became the clear winner, they turned meek and submissive to him, without even being grudging about it: "The only reason I'm supporting him is because I want a Republican in the White House."

This included "Little Marco" Rubio and "Lyin' Ted" Cruz.

 

[James Brown]

Disagree. The Tea Party was a false flag movement to bring the financial conservatives into the GOP.

Where were they before?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

For a brief while. A few years. Then it was business as usual. There's no way a successful Tea Party movement would have allowed the nomination of Romney.

I didn't know the Tea Party was successful. I thought the Republicans successfully subverted, neutralized, and then reabsorbed them.

Did you know the first Tea Party event happened in 2007?

Disagree. The Tea Party was a false flag movement to bring the financial conservatives into the GOP. Thus their merging into the GOP was not subversion but by design.

The Tea Party of 2007 and 2008 was not. It was promptly astroturfed into everything you say in January 2009. Something significant happened November 5, 2007, and something else significant happened on January 20th, 2009. Those two dates show a starkly different Tea Party.

You remember January 20, 2009? It is the day the anti-war movement died.

Do you not understand what I meant by "false flag"? You're describing what it looked like, I disagree about whether that's what actually happened.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

No, I don’t think there’s a poll. The premise in the article is that Democrats made a big stink about Clinton getting what they considered systematic advantages.

That was a small portion of the Democrats, and a lot of ex-Democrats and independents. We STILL have the core of the Democratic Party cheering on Hillary and establishment insider corporate Democrats. Lets not repaint history.

Meanwhile looking comparatively at the voices of Republicans making a stink about either the Trump Capmpaign taking over the RNC or the choices of SC to not even have a primary (!) there is not a stink to be seen.

This is interesting. Republicans and conservatives have generally historically been more authoritarian and fall in line, so not a big surprise. The Trump campaign has taken over the RNC? SC isn't having a primary? I didn't know that. Is that because of Trump ordering it or is it that nobody has dared challenge Trump's re-election. I also don't recall if any Democrats ran against Obama in a primary. Was that a thing? Who was the contender?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I thought the Tea Party started out as libertarians (including some liberal ones) who were basically the same crowd as the "we are the 99%" occupation wall street people, and who eventually morphed into backers of Bernie, Ron Paul, and now maybe Ocasio-Cortez.

The Tea Party then got taken over by the far right, hooking up with those social issues from that end, lost the left side of its support and then later got absorbed into mainstream Republicanism.

Is that an incorrect recollection? I never attended a Tea Party rally and only speak from what I saw on news, youtube, Jon Stewart, etc.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Disagree. The Tea Party was a false flag movement to bring the financial conservatives into the GOP.

Where were they before?

Disenchanted with the Republicans for not being fiscal conservatives.

 

[J842P]

I thought the Tea Party started out as libertarians (including some liberal ones) who were basically the same crowd as the "we are the 99%" occupation wall street people, and who eventually morphed into backers of Bernie, Ron Paul, and now maybe Ocasio-Cortez.

The Tea Party then got taken over by the far right, hooking up with those social issues from that end, lost the left side of its support and then later got absorbed into mainstream Republicanism.

Is that an incorrect recollection? I never attended a Tea Party rally and only speak from what I saw on news, youtube, Jon Stewart, etc.

Eh, nah, they've always tilted to the right. Their big thing was taxes and the bailout.

 

[scombrid]

The last decade has been essentially a huge coup against the establishment Republicans, first with the Tea Party which was extremely successful, and afterwards with Trump. Saying that Republican voters are "more ok with it" is not really evidenced by anything. Is there at least a poll or something?

The whole TeaParty thing was a show orchestrated by Americans For Prosperity, The Heritage Foundation, and The Heartland Institute. The establishment got exactly what it wanted in the form of a bunch of tools to shill for the multinational corporations that hide behind those fronts. Those are establishment GOP through and through. There was a grass roots Tea Party in the early going but it got swallowed by the machine.


There was some noise on the left grumbling about Bernie being shafted. Thing is, it was massively amplified by a vote suppression campaign orchestrated by the think tanks that I already listed along with the IRA. The right wing made noise about how unfair DNC was to Hillary's opponents but it was a bucket full of crocodile tears.