What happens to the Republican Party now? (5 Viewers)

[MT15]

This election nonsense by Trump may end up splitting up the Republican Party. I just don’t see how the one third (?) who are principled conservatives can stay in the same party with Trump sycophants who are willing to sign onto the TX Supreme Court case.

We also saw the alt right types chanting “destroy the GOP” in Washington today because they didn’t keep Trump in power. I think the Q types will also hold the same ill will toward the traditional Republican Party. In fact its quite possible that all the voters who are really in a Trump personality cult will also blame the GOP for his loss. It’s only a matter of time IMO before Trump himself gets around to blaming the GOP.

There is some discussion of this on Twitter. What do you all think?

 

[Incumbent]

So apparently, a lot of Biden/Anti-Trump supporters have figured out that feel good policies are probably not the best way to go. Turns out people don't like crime and who knew, the constant and never ending 'look, racism!' is turning people off. I think the new Republican party will be just fine.

https://apnews.com/article/2022-mid...presidential-e50db07385831e67f866ec45402be8b9

WASHINGTON (AP) — A political shift is beginning to take hold across the U.S. as tens of thousands of suburban swing voters who helped fuel the Democratic Party’s gains in recent years are becoming Republicans.

More than 1 million voters across 43 states have switched to the Republican Party over the last year, according to voter registration data analyzed by The Associated Press. The previously unreported number reflects a phenomenon that is playing out in virtually every region of the country — Democratic and Republican states along with cities and small towns — in the period since President Joe Biden replaced former President Donald Trump.
“It’s more so a rejection of the left than embracing the right,” said Smith, a 37-year-old professional counselor whose transition away from the Democratic Party began five or six years ago when he registered as a libertarian.

And an estimated 630,000 voters switched to the Democratic Party. So you get a net difference of about 370,000.

I do think there are messaging problems coming from the Left and movements like defunding the police were poorly conceived.

In the article, there is also speculation about why some of that voter registration movement is happening, unrelated to ideological shifts, and also makes the point that party switching isn't unusual. Notably, the latest numbers show a reversal in the trend since Trump has been out of office.

I do think Democrats need to do a much better job of centering their platform on issues that reach across demographics and focus on solidifying a coalition, but there is some sensationalizing of what exactly is occurring with voter registrations.

 

[SteveSBrickNJ]

So apparently, a lot of Biden/Anti-Trump supporters have figured out that feel good policies are probably not the best way to go. Turns out people don't like crime and who knew, the constant and never ending 'look, racism!' is turning people off. I think the new Republican party will be just fine.

https://apnews.com/article/2022-mid...presidential-e50db07385831e67f866ec45402be8b9

WASHINGTON (AP) — A political shift is beginning to take hold across the U.S. as tens of thousands of suburban swing voters who helped fuel the Democratic Party’s gains in recent years are becoming Republicans.

More than 1 million voters across 43 states have switched to the Republican Party over the last year, according to voter registration data analyzed by The Associated Press. The previously unreported number reflects a phenomenon that is playing out in virtually every region of the country — Democratic and Republican states along with cities and small towns — in the period since President Joe Biden replaced former President Donald Trump.
“It’s more so a rejection of the left than embracing the right,” said Smith, a 37-year-old professional counselor whose transition away from the Democratic Party began five or six years ago when he registered as a libertarian.

Wow! "More than 1 million voters across 43 states have switched to the Republican Party over the last year,..."

 

[SteveSBrickNJ]

DeSantis is in some ways worse than Trump. He's still a radical hyper nationalist and religious fundamentalist... he just didn't happen to overtly stage a coup. The GOP will stay run with Trump's play book of arguing any close election they lose is fraudulent without a shred of evidence. They'll put in place Republicans in key local and state-wide offices to ensure otherwise legitimate slates of electors are rejected.The unfortunate reality is our form of government lends itself to autocracy... especially now where (and this was triggered by Democratic Senator Harry Reid in the Obama years) it only takes a majority to appoint a Supreme Court Justice so it has devolved into little more than another political branch or supra-legislature.

That Harry Reid was not my favorite
He didn't seem to envision what would happen "down the road".

 

[SteveSBrickNJ]

And an estimated 630,000 voters switched to the Democratic Party. So you get a net difference of about 370,000.

I do think there are messaging problems coming from the Left and movements like defunding the police were poorly conceived.

In the article, there is also speculation about why some of that voter registration movement is happening, unrelated to ideological shifts, and also makes the point that party switching isn't unusual. Notably, the latest numbers show a reversal in the trend since Trump has been out of office.

I do think Democrats need to do a much better job of centering their platform on issues that reach across demographics and focus on solidifying a coalition, but there is some sensationalizing of what exactly is occurring with voter registrations.

AND....who knows how the Supreme Courts recent decision will play out. That could increase the number of Pro Choice people declaring themselves to be Democrats ( rather than Independents)

 

[Incumbent]

AND....who knows how the Supreme Courts recent decision will play out. That could increase the number of Pro Choice people declaring themselves to be Democrats ( rather than Independents)

It will undoubtedly have some effect.

More important is how people vote. Registrations are a set of data to consider but voters cross lines at the voting booth who didn't change party affiliations. Some registration shifts can be driven by closed primary systems - as was pointed out in the article.

 

[coldseat]

DeSantis is in some ways worse than Trump. He's still a radical hyper nationalist and religious fundamentalist... he just didn't happen to overtly stage a coup. The GOP will stay run with Trump's play book of arguing any close election they lose is fraudulent without a shred of evidence. They'll put in place Republicans in key local and state-wide offices to ensure otherwise legitimate slates of electors are rejected.The unfortunate reality is our form of government lends itself to autocracy... especially now where (and this was triggered by Democratic Senator Harry Reid in the Obama years) it only takes a majority to appoint a Supreme Court Justice so it has devolved into little more than another political branch or supra-legislature.

I would agree with everything except this part. While Reid indeed ended the requirement of 60 vote for district/appellate court justices and cabinet positions, we should all remember why that was. McConnell, in his successful decades long gambit to remake the court and play power politics, had filibustered the majority of Obama's nominees.

McConnell went ahead and eliminated the filibuster for SC Justices as soon as he had the chance in 2017 to appoint Gorsuch. Anybody that thinks that McConnell wouldn't have eliminated the filibuster for district/appellate court justices and cabinet positions is very naïve and clearly hasn't been paying attention the last decade.

And yet Reid and his fellow Democrats felt they'd been pushed to the brink. Republicans had blocked three nominations to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, which rules on many federal regulatory matters. Democrats charged that the trio were blocked not because of their qualifications or legal views but because of unrelated policy disagreements, or because Republicans don't want this particular court to work. On the Senate floor Thursday morning, Reid pointed out that half of the 168 filibusters of executive and judicial nominees in American history have come during the Obama Administration. "These nominees deserve at least an up-or-down vote," Reid said. "But Republican filibusters deny them a fair vote and deny the president his team."

McConnell, speaking next, accused Reid of trying to deflect attention from the ongoing failure of Obamacare implementation. "Let me be clear: The Democratic playbook of double standards, broken promises, and raw power is the same playbook that got us Obamacare," he raged. "It has to end. It may take the American people to end it."

Why Harry Reid Went Nuclear

Fed up with an unrelenting stream of blocked nominations, the Democratic leader makes a historic change to Senate filibuster rules.

www.theatlantic.com

 

[cuddlemonkey]

I would agree with everything except this part. While Reid indeed ended the requirement of 60 vote for district/appellate court justices and cabinet positions, we should all remember why that was. McConnell, in his successful decades long gambit to remake the court and play power politics, had filibustered the majority of Obama's nominees.

McConnell went ahead and eliminated the filibuster for SC Justices as soon as he had the chance in 2017 to appoint Gorsuch. Anybody that thinks that McConnell wouldn't have eliminated the filibuster for district/appellate court justices and cabinet positions is very naïve and clearly hasn't been paying attention the last decade.

Why Harry Reid Went Nuclear

Fed up with an unrelenting stream of blocked nominations, the Democratic leader makes a historic change to Senate filibuster rules.

www.theatlantic.com

And the minute he has power again, he will eliminate the filibuster entirely. It's quite clear what he's doing.

 

[MT15]

This quote is perfect for describing the MAGAs, which includes DeSantis BTW. Its from Sartre, just substitute MAGA for anti-Semite. The fact that the R party is 70-80% MAGA is what is extremely dangerous for American democracy right now. Examples of the absurd: the election was stolen, Biden and Ds are socialists, CRT is taught in grade and high schools, by acknowledging LBGTQ folks we are “grooming” children, diversity is dangerous, women shouldn’t have the same rights as men. There were plenty (plenty) of Germans who thought the anti-Semites were pretty harmless. Up until they weren’t and then it was too late. It’s inexcusable to turn a blind eye to the burgeoning fascism in the modern Republican Party.

“Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.”​

 

[SteveSBrickNJ]

For SURE Trump won't be nominated at the 2024 GOP Convention.
POSSIBLY he'll be on trial?
*

About half say Trump should be charged for 1/6: AP-NORC poll

About half of Americans believe former President Donald Trump should be charged with a crime for his role in the U.S. Capitol attack on Jan. 6, 2021, a new poll shows. Fifty-eight percent say Trump bears a great deal or quite a bit of responsibility for what happened that day. The poll was...

www.yahoo.com

 

[coldseat]

For SURE Trump won't be nominated at the 2024 GOP Convention.
POSSIBLY he'll be on trial?
*

About half say Trump should be charged for 1/6: AP-NORC poll

About half of Americans believe former President Donald Trump should be charged with a crime for his role in the U.S. Capitol attack on Jan. 6, 2021, a new poll shows. Fifty-eight percent say Trump bears a great deal or quite a bit of responsibility for what happened that day. The poll was...

www.yahoo.com

You must have missed this:

Among Republicans, 68% say he should not be charged and 21% say they don’t know.

That's not exactly screaming that Trump won't be the Republican nominee. He may not be, but that can't be said with any certainty right now. Even if he does end up being charged and is on trial during the election.

 

[SteveSBrickNJ]

You must have missed this:


That's not exactly screaming that Trump won't be the Republican nominee. He may not be, but that can't be said with any certainty right now. Even if he does end up being charged and is on trial during the election.

In 3 weeks it will be 62%...weeks after that 57%...etc, etc.
Some Republicans are slow to let go of their entrenched positions....but they will.
The GOP power brokers will have to bail on Trump or they risk losing their current momentum for the midterms.

 

[SaulGoodmanEsq]

I would agree with everything except this part. While Reid indeed ended the requirement of 60 vote for district/appellate court justices and cabinet positions, we should all remember why that was. McConnell, in his successful decades long gambit to remake the court and play power politics, had filibustered the majority of Obama's nominees.

McConnell went ahead and eliminated the filibuster for SC Justices as soon as he had the chance in 2017 to appoint Gorsuch. Anybody that thinks that McConnell wouldn't have eliminated the filibuster for district/appellate court justices and cabinet positions is very naïve and clearly hasn't been paying attention the last decade.

I'm not sure. It's definitely possible he would have but I think Reid doing it first gave him the green light -- it's a silly distinction to say you're just going to do it for judges except the Supreme Court. He had to have known it would naturally follow and it was shortsighted to assume the GOP wouldn't someday control the Senate again.

I think we're facing a similar issue with the filibuster. I wouldn't get rid of it. Sure, McConnell could do it if the GOP takes back control of the Senate but... perhaps not assuming Murkowksi wins reelection. Her, Collins, and Romney could effectively forestall McConnell from doing it and, should the Democrats lose control of the Senate, it would be nice to have the ability to block all the crazy laws the GOP will surely try to implement with a majority and President DeSantis. If you remove it then all the GOP needs is a simple majority.

 

[coldseat]

I'm not sure. It's definitely possible he would have but I think Reid doing it first gave him the green light -- it's a silly distinction to say you're just going to do it for judges except the Supreme Court. He had to have known it would naturally follow and it was shortsighted to assume the GOP wouldn't someday control the Senate again.

I think we're facing a similar issue with the filibuster. I wouldn't get rid of it. Sure, McConnell could do it if the GOP takes back control of the Senate but... perhaps not assuming Murkowksi wins reelection. Her, Collins, and Romney could effectively forestall McConnell from doing it and, should the Democrats lose control of the Senate, it would be nice to have the ability to block all the crazy laws the GOP will surely try to implement with a majority and President DeSantis. If you remove it then all the GOP needs is a simple majority.

I don't think McConnell wants to get rid of the filibuster for laws. He doesn't need to pass laws and move legislation the way the Democrats need too to be successful. He's more than happy to have very little legislative action, even on conservative issue. He only really cares about 2 things: Tax cuts, which he can do without the filibuster as long as he has a majority, and the SC, which he's already accomplished.

Removing the filibuster for judges has also allowed Biden to appoint his nominations at record pace, even faster than Trump, with the slim Democratic majority. So that's not a bad thing other than the manipulation of the SC by McConnell.

Biden’s judicial appointments—still very diverse but numbers may be falling off

An analysis of President Biden’s so far historic record of lower court confirmations.

www.brookings.edu

 

[SaulGoodmanEsq]

I don't think McConnell wants to get rid of the filibuster for laws. He doesn't need to pass laws and move legislation the way the Democrats need too to be successful. He's more than happy to have very little legislative action, even on conservative issue. He only really cares about 2 things: Tax cuts, which he can do without the filibuster as long as he has a majority, and the SC, which he's already accomplished.

Removing the filibuster for judges has also allowed Biden to appoint his nominations at record pace, even faster than Trump, with the slim Democratic majority. So that's not a bad thing other than the manipulation of the SC by McConnell.

Biden’s judicial appointments—still very diverse but numbers may be falling off

An analysis of President Biden’s so far historic record of lower court confirmations.

www.brookings.edu

I don't dispute the numbers but I'm approaching it from the perspective that the federal courts would be better off with judges who were able to get 60 votes in the Senate.

 

[MT15]

This is in response to the MI R Governor primary debate. None of the five candidates voiced support for same sex marriage. All supported personhood at conception, which is extremely radical. There isn’t a single sane R candidate for Governor in Michigan.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

I don't dispute the numbers but I'm approaching it from the perspective that the federal courts would be better off with judges who were able to get 60 votes in the Senate.

Whether this is true or not doesn't matter. McConnell didn't care if he stonewalled 100% of picks and left vacancies empty for years. He would have done it until the moment the GOP had the White House and a Senate majority, then he would have eliminated it himself to fill all of those seats with judges who shouldn't even get consideration, much less 60 votes.

 

[Taurus]

I don't dispute the numbers but I'm approaching it from the perspective that the federal courts would be better off with judges who were able to get 60 votes in the Senate.

Except that that isn't a thing anymore. McConnell proved it. You have to remember that completely dismantling the federal government is Job 1 for the GOP. They'd be quite happy if nobody ever got confirmed, a world without federal judges is their happy place.

 

[superchuck500]