Will the Republican party split?

 
Skipshot
 
Avatar
 
 
Skipshot
Total Posts:  10519
Joined  20-10-2006
 
 
 
11 February 2021 19:42
 

Trump was the FOX News president, and the disaster that he was must have moderate Republicans reconsidering their allegiance to the party as it has fallen into disorder.  Will they split the party and doom conservative chances of winning a national election in 2022?  Speaking for myself as a sushi-eating, tea-drinking, foreign-car-driving LIBERAL, I hope so.  The Republican strategy of doubling down when they lose has played out with the capitol riot, at least I hope so.  Doubling down has moved the Republican party to openly incorporate the radical range of conspiracy theorists, racists, religious and political zealots, holocaust deniers, and Confederates to maintain their power, and now they face a reckoning - does the Republican party continue to embrace and give credence to the radical right strictly as a matter of self-preservation at the cost of threatening the republic, or do they admit they have gone too far?

We will find out which direction the party chooses in 2022.

My crystal ball says Trump is acquitted in the Senate and he becomes the Republican king-maker in 2022.  If there is a party split and his candidates survive the primaries and are elected, and the Republicans win either or both house of Congress, then the radical right is the future of the party.  If his candidates lose, then he is dumped.

[ Edited: 11 February 2021 19:46 by Skipshot]
 
Twissel
 
Avatar
 
 
Twissel
Total Posts:  3287
Joined  19-01-2015
 
 
 
11 February 2021 22:06
 

I doubt the party will split ... even though it currently tries to split three ways: the anti-Trump-wing, the pro-Trump-wing and the good-old “we don’t care as long as you put an R in front for your name”-wing.
which makes me doubt that the “not big tent”-Republicans will manage to actually run in elections.

2022 will indeed be the test on whether the Trumpistas will come out and vote for pro-Trump Republicans or turn away from the entire party in disgust.
It will always be the test on how much Republicans can disenfranchise voters to rergain power.

 
 
unsmoked
 
Avatar
 
 
unsmoked
Total Posts:  9661
Joined  20-02-2006
 
 
 
12 February 2021 09:50
 
Twissel - 11 February 2021 10:06 PM

I doubt the party will split ... even though it currently tries to split three ways: the anti-Trump-wing, the pro-Trump-wing and the good-old “we don’t care as long as you put an R in front for your name”-wing.
which makes me doubt that the “not big tent”-Republicans will manage to actually run in elections.

2022 will indeed be the test on whether the Trumpistas will come out and vote for pro-Trump Republicans or turn away from the entire party in disgust.
It will always be the test on how much Republicans can disenfranchise voters to rergain power.

Predictions for the Race in 2024

Nikki Haley vs Kamala Harris -  https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/12/politics/nikki-haley-2024-donald-trump/index.html

Like a hermit crab finding a new shell, the Republicans will leave their old Trump shell behind and find a new perfect fit like Nikki.

The cast off Trump shell will be picked up by white supremacists, conspiracy theorists, those who think the mainstream media is their enemy, anti-science evangelicals, climate change deniers, paramilitary one-man-rule cultists . . . with Trump as their third party candidate . . . endorsed and aided by Putin and other despots around the world who love what Trump has done to American exceptionalism, and global leadership.

(CNN)Nikki Haley hasn’t said much about Donald Trump and the future of the Republican Party since the former President went down the rabbit hole of stolen election conspiracy theories, a path that led directly to the riot at the US Capitol on January 6.

That was, of course, purposeful. Haley, the former South Carolina governor and UN Ambassador for Trump with an eye on a presidential run in 2024, didn’t want to be anywhere near Trump’s false claims about the election. And after January 6, Trump became absolutely radioactive to all but his most ardent supporters.

After waiting and watching for the last three months, Haley made her move Friday—in the form of a long profile of her future prospects by Politico’s Tim Alberta that includes this eye-opening quote on Trump:

“We need to acknowledge he let us down. He went down a path he shouldn’t have, and we shouldn’t have followed him, and we shouldn’t have listened to him. And we can’t let that ever happen again.”

And this one about Trump’s political future:
“He’s not going to run for federal office again. ... I don’t think he’s going to be in the picture. I don’t think he can. He’s fallen so far.”

[ Edited: 12 February 2021 09:59 by unsmoked]
 
 
weird buffalo
 
Avatar
 
 
weird buffalo
Total Posts:  976
Joined  19-06-2020
 
 
 
12 February 2021 11:36
 

One issue is that right now the parties aren’t actually very strong.  The Republican party is not dictating to their electorate what is and isn’t the goal of the party.  The party is at the whims of the masses, the news environment, and a couple of loonies.  The reason it won’t split, is the party will just shift to wherever it needs to in order to represent what their voters want.  Ted Cruz even laid out this case in his argument against certifying the election results.  The majority of Republican voters believed a lie, and so it’s now his job to act as if the lie is true.

“There go my people.  I must follow them, for I am their leader.”

 
Cheshire Cat
 
Avatar
 
 
Cheshire Cat
Total Posts:  1742
Joined  01-11-2014
 
 
 
12 February 2021 12:53
 

The Republican party has consistently shown that it will do anything, absolutely anything, to stay in power.

It will keep minorities from voting by striking them from the voting roles, by trying to eliminate mail-in voting, and by removing polling places. It will use gerrymandering to it’s full advantage. It will serve as handmaids to the elite wealthy and corporations, while at the same time, appeasing and encouraging the Trump cultists, religious zealots, conspiracy kooks, libertarians, gun nuts and white racists whose votes they desperately need in order to stay in power.

So, no, the Republican party will not split apart.

 
 
unsmoked
 
Avatar
 
 
unsmoked
Total Posts:  9661
Joined  20-02-2006
 
 
 
14 February 2021 15:27
 

What if only 40 million still supported Trump today instead of the 74 million in 2016?  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iTACH1eVIaA  (Watch it just one more time.)

Image Attachments
 
128_2872.JPG
 
 
 
Brick Bungalow
 
Avatar
 
 
Brick Bungalow
Total Posts:  5542
Joined  28-05-2009
 
 
 
23 February 2021 00:11
 

I’d like to see it. And not for merely selfish or retributory reasons. I think both parties should split. I think the barriers to entry for third parties should be eliminated. I think the schoolyard codes that motivate representatives away from speaking their minds at critical junctures should be dissolved. I really hope that the current turmoil can be leveraged to allow the freshman class something of a clean slate. Trump die hards are fond of saying that Trump revealed corruption or called the beltway bluff. There is actually some truth to that, although not in the way they mean. I do think he forced a number of public servants to do a level of soul searching they had never done before.

 
weird buffalo
 
Avatar
 
 
weird buffalo
Total Posts:  976
Joined  19-06-2020
 
 
 
23 February 2021 06:45
 

For third parties to matter, we’d have to get rid of our first-past-the-post system combined with geographic representation.  There is no prize for coming in second, third, or fourth.  If you can’t win first place, you aren’t actually competing.

 
Antisocialdarwinist
 
Avatar
 
 
Antisocialdarwinist
Total Posts:  7246
Joined  08-12-2006
 
 
 
23 February 2021 14:37
 
weird buffalo - 23 February 2021 06:45 AM

For third parties to matter, we’d have to get rid of our first-past-the-post system combined with geographic representation.  There is no prize for coming in second, third, or fourth.  If you can’t win first place, you aren’t actually competing.

Well, what do you know? For once we agree: no third party has a chance with FPtP voting. But what’s the alternative? Proportional voting systems have their own problems—just look at Italy.

The inevitable problem with any universal suffrage voting system is: the electorate.

 
 
weird buffalo
 
Avatar
 
 
weird buffalo
Total Posts:  976
Joined  19-06-2020
 
 
 
23 February 2021 16:05
 
Antisocialdarwinist - 23 February 2021 02:37 PM
weird buffalo - 23 February 2021 06:45 AM

For third parties to matter, we’d have to get rid of our first-past-the-post system combined with geographic representation.  There is no prize for coming in second, third, or fourth.  If you can’t win first place, you aren’t actually competing.

Well, what do you know? For once we agree: no third party has a chance with FPtP voting. But what’s the alternative? Proportional voting systems have their own problems—just look at Italy.

The inevitable problem with any universal suffrage voting system is: the electorate.

Well, no system is going to be perfect, it’s just a long series of making it less bad.

My first inclination is a mix.  We’re a really big country, both geographically and demographically.  To me that means that we will always need some amount of geographic representation.  The issues of New York City are not the issues of Kansas.  At the same time, ideology can cut across geography.  The desire for good schools is pretty universal.  I think the best place to start would be to completely reimagine the senate.

Expand it to 200-300 seats.  It retains all responsibilities that it does now (confirm appointees, ratify treaties, removal trials, etc) so that we don’t have to go through the rest of the constitution line by line.  Elections for senate seats are now completely national.  Doesn’t matter if you live in Guam, PR, or Texas… it’s the same election.  Doesn’t matter what state you live in, it’s the same election.  Divide the seats proportionally by vote (Guam’s population of 167,000 won’t really change things much).  I personally would prefer the threshold to win a seat to be the % of the vote that seat represents.  200 seats divided by 150 million voters, means you’d need ~750,000 votes for one seat.

The other big change, both chambers vote together on bills, majority passes.  It’d no longer have to pass the house and senate separately, but rather as a single body (this is also why i’d increase the Senate size).  The senate still being slightly smaller than the house prevents it from overwhelming the house vote entirely.

As for term sizes, or staggering them, I’m extremely open to variations.  I don’t think term limits are necessary (except for judges, I’d like to reduce their appointments from lifetime to 18 years).