The Party of personal responsibility?

[DonaldD]

Yup. 

Political parties are actually more dependent on their brand, because the brand is literally what they are selling.  And what they are selling now, unless they come out and dissociate themselves with Taylor Greene's ideas strongly, is a particular set of ideas that are currently very popular with a significant percentage of Republican voters.

[Wayward Son]

There is one telling way to show how the Republican Party is crazier than the Democrats.

Who do the Republican punish?

Will it be Greene, who has uttered and agreed with outrageous claims that any sane American would turn away from, including agreeing with the execution of a coworker?

Or Cheney, who had the audacity to claim that Trump actually did something worth impeaching him for, which many Americans agree with?

If you had to choose, which do you think an inclusive party has more reason to censure?

Now point to who the Democrats try to punish, and who they should have punished.

It is already a bridge too far for dozens of Bush Administration officials, who have decided to leave the Republican Party.

[rightleft22]

They didn't leave the GOP the party left them...

I don't recognize or understand this new "conservatism" which is any thing but conservative
Where is the prudence, rule of law, trust but verify, balanced regulation, service as a ideal for the good of the whole...

To be fair I don't recognize the new liberalism either which is anything but liberal
Where we are  defined by worse thing we have ever done with no room for forgives or learning better justifying cancelation of people... reinforcing labels as identity that at the same time they say they wish to transcend.

So confusing.

[TheDrake]

It absolutely damages the Republican brand in more moderate areas. If you donate to RNC, you're supporting Greene as it stands. Some people are not going to be okay with that. You are impacted by who you associate with. If my CEO was spouting that *censored*, I'd quit the company as soon as possible.

[NobleHunter]

So if moderate and reasonable conservatives are being driven out of the Republican party and the Democrats are trending to the left, how long until the two party system cracks and allows the formation of a centrist party? If so many voters are being left out, one would expect there to be some re-alignment.

[rightleft22]

A centrist party could bring the House and Senet back into performing their jobs. Democracy relies on compromise and working together. A third party could help fascinate that or maybe not...

In a Democracy what does it mean to say Many voters are being left out?

No one in a democracy should expect to have everything go their way or like everything, its about establishing healthy boundaries as in any relationship.

[msquared]

It is the thought that compromise is evil and a surrender of your beliefs. It has gotten out of hand on both sides, but it seems worse on the conservative side.

[TheDrake]

The best chance for a unity party type of approach would be at the state legislature level first. There might be a few US districts that might allow a congressional run, but too many have been engineered as "safe" districts.

[TheDeamon]

If person 'A', employed by 'ACME co', makes public comments that put ACME in a bad situation, either PR wise, or in ways that conflict with their policy or direction, ACME will almost certainly take actions to protect their brand.  If they don't they will reap the benefits of that decision as well.  This is especially true if person 'A' has a publicly visible position, and especially if they are seen to have authority within the company.  It might even change the perception of their whole brand.

If person 'B', who is NOT employed by ACME, does the same, ACME won't be in the same position. If ACME does not act against person 'B', ACME is not going to have a problem. 

Taylor Greene is becoming the brand of the Republicans - the different levels of crazy, including the support for killing political opponents.  If other leaders don't actively push back on this person, offering tacit approval (and the approval seems to be more than just tacit at this point) that will become their brand.  The problem is, they seem to want that to be their brand for a specific subset of the population.

You seem to have a very different view of how political parties function than what the American model has been historically, or what I'd prefer the American model to be going forward.

The National Party Organizations should be having exactly 0 influence on what happens at the local level. APAL -- All Politics Are Local.

You're wanting to make a local decision about representation and have the national organization invalidate it because the locals "chose poorly." It doesn't change the matter that they chose her, it's between them and her. Not the rest of us.

[TheDeamon]

There is one telling way to show how the Republican Party is crazier than the Democrats.

Who do the Republican punish?

Will it be Greene, who has uttered and agreed with outrageous claims that any sane American would turn away from, including agreeing with the execution of a coworker?

Or Cheney, who had the audacity to claim that Trump actually did something worth impeaching him for, which many Americans agree with?

If you had to choose, which do you think an inclusive party has more reason to censure?

Now point to who the Democrats try to punish, and who they should have punished.

It is already a bridge too far for dozens of Bush Administration officials, who have decided to leave the Republican Party.

See, funny thing about the Bush43 administration, and the Cheney Family. There are a bunch of these people who were called "NeoCons" among their number. NeoCons have a lot in common with the Corporate part of the DNC. They love optional wars, they love corporate handouts from the Government, and they don't care about anyone without at least a 7 figure balance sheet.

[rightleft22]

If person 'A', employed by 'ACME co', makes public comments that put ACME in a bad situation, either PR wise, or in ways that conflict with their policy or direction, ACME will almost certainly take actions to protect their brand.  If they don't they will reap the benefits of that decision as well.  This is especially true if person 'A' has a publicly visible position, and especially if they are seen to have authority within the company.  It might even change the perception of their whole brand.

If person 'B', who is NOT employed by ACME, does the same, ACME won't be in the same position. If ACME does not act against person 'B', ACME is not going to have a problem. 

Taylor Greene is becoming the brand of the Republicans - the different levels of crazy, including the support for killing political opponents.  If other leaders don't actively push back on this person, offering tacit approval (and the approval seems to be more than just tacit at this point) that will become their brand.  The problem is, they seem to want that to be their brand for a specific subset of the population.

You seem to have a very different view of how political parties function than what the American model has been historically, or what I'd prefer the American model to be going forward.

The National Party Organizations should be having exactly 0 influence on what happens at the local level. APAL -- All Politics Are Local.

You're wanting to make a local decision about representation and have the national organization invalidate it because the locals "chose poorly." It doesn't change the matter that they chose her, it's between them and her. Not the rest of us.

You may be forgetting about the party whips. The term "whip" comes from a fox-hunting expression— "whipper-in"—referring to the member of the hunting team responsible for keeping the dogs from straying from the team during a chase. Established early in the 20th century, the development of party whips coincided with the evolution of party leaders in the Senate.

When a member strays the whip brings them back in line. This is not invalidate the local representation but puts them in context with party goals. Members of a party can be held accountable to the party without invalidating their election. 
If a member is not held accountable and even given plum assignments that is a sign of where the party is heading. and who wiping whom. Or in this case if the tail is waging the dog?

[DonaldD]

You're wanting to make a local decision about representation and have the national organization invalidate it because the locals "chose poorly." It doesn't change the matter that they chose her, it's between them and her. Not the rest of us.

That would be so convenient, but no - the national organization, if it doesn't speak now, will be associated with that person's positions, like it or not.  It's not like there is a rule that says the national organization must be punished for the sins of its members.  But the silence is just one more piece of evidence illustrating what the party currently values. And naming her to a committee?  That's not even silence.

[DJQuag]

You're wanting to make a local decision about representation and have the national organization invalidate it because the locals "chose poorly." It doesn't change the matter that they chose her, it's between them and her. Not the rest of us.

That would be so convenient, but no - the national organization, if it doesn't speak now, will be associated with that person's positions, like it or not.  It's not like there is a rule that says the national organization must be punished for the sins of its members.  But the silence is just one more piece of evidence illustrating what the party currently values. And naming her to a committee?  That's not even silence.

Don't they all get named to a committee? Again, could be wrong, willing to hear it. How many of her fellow freshman Reps found themselves named to a Committee? Who didn't?

[TheDeamon]

You're wanting to make a local decision about representation and have the national organization invalidate it because the locals "chose poorly." It doesn't change the matter that they chose her, it's between them and her. Not the rest of us.

That would be so convenient, but no - the national organization, if it doesn't speak now, will be associated with that person's positions, like it or not.  It's not like there is a rule that says the national organization must be punished for the sins of its members.  But the silence is just one more piece of evidence illustrating what the party currently values. And naming her to a committee?  That's not even silence.

Don't they all get named to a committee? Again, could be wrong, willing to hear it. How many of her fellow freshman Reps found themselves named to a Committee? Who didn't?

Everyone gets a committee seat, many get two seats. There is also a pecking order for a lot of them, so you can sometimes tell how a person rates with the leadership based on the committee memberships they have. (exception being when a member wants a seat in a given committee for "reasons")

[TheDeamon]

This is from the 103rd Congress(Democrats):
https://archives-democrats-rules.house.gov/Archives/jcoc2d.htm

House. For assignment purposes, both parties have grouped standing committees into three categories -- exclusive, major, and non-major for Democrats and red, white, and blue for Republicans. The Democratic and Republican categories are similar but not identical. While the current Democratic categories are the same as those first incorporated into Caucus Rules in 1975, Republican categories tend to be somewhat more fluid. Membership on select and joint committees is not subject to party restrictions; the Speaker assigns Members to these panels, appointing Republicans on the recommendation of the Minority Leader.

Most Representatives may serve on two standing committees. However, Democrats may only serve on one exclusive committee (Appropriations, Rules, Ways and Means) and Republicans may only serve on one red committee (Appropriations, Energy and Commerce, Rules, Ways and Means). Other Democrats generally may serve on either a major and a non-major committee, or two non-major committees. Other Republicans generally may serve on one white and one blue committee, or two blue committees. Certain standing committees are exempted from these restrictions by both Democratic Caucus and Republican Conference Rules. For instance, both parties allow Members to serve on the Standards of Official Conduct Committee without regard to their other assignments. Democratic Caucus Rules also provide exemptions for the District of Columbia and House Administration Committees, and for members assigned to the Foreign Affairs and Judiciary Committees during particular Congresses.

[DJQuag]

You're wanting to make a local decision about representation and have the national organization invalidate it because the locals "chose poorly." It doesn't change the matter that they chose her, it's between them and her. Not the rest of us.

That would be so convenient, but no - the national organization, if it doesn't speak now, will be associated with that person's positions, like it or not.  It's not like there is a rule that says the national organization must be punished for the sins of its members.  But the silence is just one more piece of evidence illustrating what the party currently values. And naming her to a committee?  That's not even silence.

Don't they all get named to a committee? Again, could be wrong, willing to hear it. How many of her fellow freshman Reps found themselves named to a Committee? Who didn't?

Everyone gets a committee seat, many get two seats. There is also a pecking order for a lot of them, so you can sometimes tell how a person rates with the leadership based on the committee memberships they have. (exception being when a member wants a seat in a given committee for "reasons")

Fair enough.  All I'm asking is how she got treated as compared to her fellows.

Better, poorly, whatever. It's one of the arrows in their quiver, "The committee of Education!" and I'm trying to get a grasp on how normal that is.

[msquared]

I think the brouhaha over the Education committee is that she has said that school shootings are false flag operations and/or did not happen and that the families are actors.

[Grant]

Better, poorly, whatever. It's one of the arrows in their quiver, "The committee of Education!" and I'm trying to get a grasp on how normal that is.

I'm of the opinion that the House Committee on Education and Labor is basically the basement in terms of committee membership.  Take a look at some of the names?  Ever heard of any of them?  When is the last time they've been in the news?  Never.  She was sent to the basement and not given a second membership. 

Could House Republicans do more?  Sure.  But they havn't.  If the Democrats want to get rid of her they can open up expulsion proceedings but will need 2/3s of the House.  Since 1861, only House members who have been convicted of crimes have been expelled.  That's not just a Republican thing.  Want her expelled?  Have a DA charge her with a crime and convict her. 

[DJQuag]

I think the brouhaha over the Education committee is that she has said that school shootings are false flag operations and/or did not happen and that the families are actors.

Eh.

That sounds a lot like stuff that doesn't matter. At least, to the kids learning.

What are we teaching kids in HS?  Are they learning logic? Basic civics?

A fundamental aspect of the Constitution and how it works? How it works for *us?*. If not, it's all BS anyway and we are *all* wasting our time because we're all screwed.

[DJQuag]

Better, poorly, whatever. It's one of the arrows in their quiver, "The committee of Education!" and I'm trying to get a grasp on how normal that is.

I'm of the opinion that the House Committee on Education and Labor is basically the basement in terms of committee membership.  Take a look at some of the names?  Ever heard of any of them?  When is the last time they've been in the news?  Never.  She was sent to the basement and not given a second membership. 

Could House Republicans do more?  Sure.  But they havn't.  If the Democrats want to get rid of her they can open up expulsion proceedings but will need 2/3s of the House.  Since 1861, only House members who have been convicted of crimes have been expelled.  That's not just a Republican thing.  Want her expelled?  Have a DA charge her with a crime and convict her.

Totes, my man.

Have her quietly taken out back and shot in the head. Metaphorically speaking of course.

That was what we could have done before but they've spread her poison and allowed it to become a replacement for Trumpism. She'd just be a martyr now.

[TheDrake]

You're wanting to make a local decision about representation and have the national organization invalidate it because the locals "chose poorly." It doesn't change the matter that they chose her, it's between them and her. Not the rest of us.

That would be so convenient, but no - the national organization, if it doesn't speak now, will be associated with that person's positions, like it or not.  It's not like there is a rule that says the national organization must be punished for the sins of its members.  But the silence is just one more piece of evidence illustrating what the party currently values. And naming her to a committee?  That's not even silence.

Don't they all get named to a committee? Again, could be wrong, willing to hear it. How many of her fellow freshman Reps found themselves named to a Committee? Who didn't?

Everyone gets a committee seat, many get two seats. There is also a pecking order for a lot of them, so you can sometimes tell how a person rates with the leadership based on the committee memberships they have. (exception being when a member wants a seat in a given committee for "reasons")

And yet they can lose all their committee seats. Just look at Rep. King, whose racist comments got him shunned by the Republicans.

[DJQuag]

You're wanting to make a local decision about representation and have the national organization invalidate it because the locals "chose poorly." It doesn't change the matter that they chose her, it's between them and her. Not the rest of us.

That would be so convenient, but no - the national organization, if it doesn't speak now, will be associated with that person's positions, like it or not.  It's not like there is a rule that says the national organization must be punished for the sins of its members.  But the silence is just one more piece of evidence illustrating what the party currently values. And naming her to a committee?  That's not even silence.

Don't they all get named to a committee? Again, could be wrong, willing to hear it. How many of her fellow freshman Reps found themselves named to a Committee? Who didn't?

Everyone gets a committee seat, many get two seats. There is also a pecking order for a lot of them, so you can sometimes tell how a person rates with the leadership based on the committee memberships they have. (exception being when a member wants a seat in a given committee for "reasons")

And yet they can lose all their committee seats. Just look at Rep. King, whose racist comments got him shunned by the Republicans.

Course they can!

We all gonna hold the line so one POS with 1/435 power in the national legislature can hold? Course not! They're a piece of *censored*!  Find some other way to remove him, not interested.

[DonaldD]

We all gonna hold the line so one POS with 1/435 power in the national legislature can hold?

I'm not sure what "hold the line" means in this context, but that does ignore that she does not simply hold 1/435th of the power.  She just had a private audience with the man in who's name thousands (1? 2? 3?) of people violently attacked the Capitol and tried to prevent the transfer of power; how many other Congress people got an audience with the orange man-child (aside from McCarthy, who slunk in to see Trump to beg forgiveness and kiss the ring?)  Not to mention - 45% of Republicans supported the attack on the Capitol the following day - I can't say I've seen an analysis of the overlap, but it is not a stretch to believe there is more overlap between that 45% and her support than there is with any other member of Congress (most congress people being nameless drones outside of their own districts).

She is the current darling of tens of millions of QAnon believers for 'speaking their truth', a truth that names their political opponents (yes, Democrats, as well as globalists and, well, those people always associated with "cabals") as sexual predators, murderers and, well, eaters of babies; literally 24% of U.S. adults believe that claims made by QAnon supporters are either very or somewhat accurate and she is their current uncontested voice in government.

So no - she holds much more than just 1/435th of the power in the national legislature.  Until they can buy it back, or until she self-destructs, she and Trump own the soul of the Republican party.

[DJQuag]

Jesus, why do you keep giving the orange man toad more power then he really has?

"She had an audience?!?"

Who gives a *censored* who that little toad wants to talk to these days. He is *done.*

After Jan 6th even the majority of his own party want absolutely nothing to do with him. Impeachment aside, and I truly do get the idea of telling someone, "No, really, you need to go *censored* yourself," but these are people just like us who need to answer to their constituents. If the will isn't there we don't need to be blaming them, we need to blame the people they answer to.

He's a 75 year old fat man. I don't expect GRRM to give us an answer to AGOIAF, I never have, and I'm just fed up with the rest of you giving this one guy power he doesn't have. Not anymore.

2024!

Christ. Have a little I don't know, something or other in yourself. He's going to stroke out or heart attack.

[DonaldD]

Ignoring his power doesn't make it disappear.

He is not in power. He will never be re-elected.  If he tries to run again, he will guarantee a loss for the Republicans worse than this time around.

BUT

There are millions of people who believe.  The Republican party, notwithstanding your oh-so-rational analysis, is giving him power willingly because they think they need his supporters.  After January 6, 45% of Republicans actually supported the attack on Congress.  That bears repeating, because obviously, people don't appreciate it.  You can bet that far more than 45% still supported Trump.  Sure, he might up and die tomorrow.  But so could Kamala Harris or Pete Buttigieg.  I used the word "audience" purposefully, because too many Republicans treat him as a religious or monarchical figure.  This is the Republican party today.

[Grant]

So no - she holds much more than just 1/435th of the power in the national legislature.  Until they can buy it back, or until she self-destructs, she and Trump own the soul of the Republican party.

Hyperbole much? 

We're talking about a freshman Congresswoman from Appalachia, Georgia.  Her district includes Rome and Dalton.  She's rolllllllllling in power and prestige.  Do you really think this woman is now in a position to bring to the Trumpian masses what they want?  Remember how upset the Trumpists were in 2016 because John Boehner couldn't deliver them everything they wanted?  That's going to be this lady in four years. 1/435th the power?  I wouldn't even go that far.  She has maybe 1/5000th of the power in the national legislature.  She's nothing.  She's a loudmouthed idiot pawn.  She's less than a pawn.  She's the saltshaker you use to replace a pawn because you lost it and then say that it can't attack due to handicapping.  She's the scout piece in Stratego.  She's a goblin spearman in Warhammer. 

The soul of the Republican Party?  It's not even Trump.  He was just the crown hero for five years.  Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity are the dark soul of the Republican party.  Sycophants like McCarthy are only reaching out to Trump because they no longer have daddy and they think he can help them.  He can't.  Smart Republicans are already vying to be the new daddy by being as Trumpy as they can, giving the Trumpy plebs what they want, and it's pretty much backfiring.  Cruz and Hawley basically shot themselves in the foot.  McCarthy will too.  Rubio will eventually. 

In three years they're all going to gather to figure out who's going to be the new daddy.  It most likely won't be Trump.  If he's still alive he's going to probably have some convictions around his neck.  That will be the end.  Your best bet at this point for a Trumpy successor daddy is probably Nikki Haley of all people. 

Every day Trump gets weaker and he and his minion's grasp on the GOP grows weaker.  They're not the soul of anything.  They're dying parasites.  Regardless of how "Trumpy" the next daddy of the GOP will be, they will still not be Trump.  Even turds like Cruz or Rubio or borderlines like Haley are not Trump.  They have no where near the problems, idiocy, corruption, or bat-*censored* craziness. 

[Aris Katsaris]

He is not in power. He will never be re-elected.  If he tries to run again, he will guarantee a loss for the Republicans worse than this time around.

I heard that claim back in 2016 too. That if he won the Republican primary, he'd be certainly soundly defeated by Hillary.

I think you're all being too optimistic in your claims that Trump's done and over with. Nothing I've seen indicates it. Everything to me indicates the Republican party is being purged of non-Trumpists. If he's acquitted, which he likely will be, he'll resume his attack on democracy tenfold.

He'll be the presidential candidate for the Republican party until the day he dies, or the day he wins the presidency again.

[DonaldD]

Well, it looks like McConnell is pushing back on the loony wing of the party - it took a while, but it's certainly a start: McConnell: Marjorie Taylor Greene's views are a 'cancer' for the GOP.

We'll see where it goes from here.

I think you're all being too optimistic in your claims that Trump's done and over with. Nothing I've seen indicates it. Everything to me indicates the Republican party is being purged of non-Trumpists. If he's acquitted, which he likely will be, he'll resume his attack on democracy tenfold.

He'll be the presidential candidate for the Republican party until the day he dies, or the day he wins the presidency again. 

The difference is, nobody thought he had a chance of winning in 2016.  He's now got 4 years of of history as the president, which was enough to motivate a record number, by over 10 million people, to vote against him in the last election. And nobody is going to make the mistake of assuming he can't win an election, or that it might not be completely awful if he did.

[TheDrake]

His birtherism was disreuptive enough before he gained tens of millions more followers, including thousands who think he's worth going to federal prison for. His ability to command the narrative is of course diminished. But he'll "be back in some form" by his own words. Those people organizing idiot flotillas are no less enamored with him than before.

[Aris Katsaris]

The difference is, nobody thought he had a chance of winning in 2016.  He's now got 4 years of of history as the president, which was enough to motivate a record number, by over 10 million people, to vote against him in the last election. And nobody is going to make the mistake of assuming he can't win an election, or that it might not be completely awful if he did.

And even with such motivation, Biden only barely managed to win, his win dependent on some 100,000 votes across 5 swing states.

You are once again underestimating Trump, saying that he'll never manage to win, same as was being said about him in 2016.

[DonaldD]

This analysis ignores that the country just experienced what happens when he doesn't get his way.  Millions of sane people are fleeing the Republican party and would stay away if Trump ran for election again. His issue is not turning out the base - it's the turnout he drives for the Democrats, and how he's disaffected independents.

[Aris Katsaris]

Ah, it's "different" this time. Yeah, okay, you'll never learn. That was the rhetoric in 2016, and that was *again* the rhetoric of 2020, where victory was again supposedly completely assured, for different reasons than before, and yet you again almost nearly lost.

You people keep changing the reasons for why victory is assured, and never learn that it isn't assured. What exact mistakes did you make in your reasoning back then that you're failing to repeat now? Once again you bring up some known data-point of how "oh now the people know, they'll never vote for him", as if that hadn't been the case in 2016 and 2020, and as if they didn't know about him then too. Yes, some sane Republicans left now. And some sane Republicans left in 2016, NOTHING IS DIFFERENT. SAME THING YOU COULD HAVE SAID THEN, YOU'RE JUST SAYING NOW.
 
Let's hope the planet gets lucky and Trump has dropped dead by 2024, because otherwise you Democrats' constant self-assurance of victory will more likely than not bring Trump again to the presidency.

[Grant]

Ah, it's "different" this time. Yeah, okay, you'll never learn. That was the rhetoric in 2016, and that was *again* the rhetoric of 2020, where victory was again supposedly completely assured, for different reasons than before, and yet you again almost nearly lost.

I'm going to have to go with Donald on this one.  2016 was a fluke in several different ways.  It was a fluke he was able to win the nomination, which he did only because he was running against some 16 other candidates that split the GOP into too many factions that could not get their crap together to beat him.  So the Republican party did indeed underestimate Trump. 

Then L'Orange won.  That really boosted his popularity because the conventional wisdom was that he couldn't beat Hillary, and Hillary was a deeply unpopular candidate.  So he pulled off the miracle win and that made him the "chosen one". 

Then the media spent 4 years attacking the guy.  Right or wrong, nobody likes the media.  That increased his popularity. 

He became teflon.  Nothing could stick.  Increased popularity. 

But now he's lost, and his popularity is at an all time low.  His disapproval is at an all time high. He probably couldn't win in Alabama.  He couldn't win the Georgia.  People know this now.  It's proven.  People's opinions are not going to change on L'Orange except in one direction.  He's not going to win any new adherents. 

The establishment wing of the Republican party is indeed under fire, but nobody has been purged.  The idea that they are only encourages more moderates to leave the party and leave it at the mercy of Trumpists. 

I appreciate your particular view, Aris.  But how many American voters have you had conversations with over the past month?  How many conservative voters have you talked to? 

[msquared]

Donald and Aris,

As a former Republican, I hope Donald is right, but am afraid Aris will end up being right.  Normally I would agree with Donald that in the past, a 1 term president would be no threat in future runs.  They would normally move into the elder statesmen roll (see Bush and Carter or even Ford).

But Trump seems to be from a different cloth.  His rise in 2016 and heavy support from the base in 2020 worries me.  As Aris points out, many of the conservatives who really dislike Trump had already moved away from him and the party, even in 2016.  So I will continue to support any one who runs against Trump, or a Trump supporter, in the future. 

I know tens of thousands of Republicans have left the party since Jan 6.  The question is will they stay away in 2022 and 2024, or will they cave when it comes down to pulling the lever for a Democrat?  It really is not enough for them to not vote for Trump and Trumpist.  We need them to vote for the people running against them, whether it is for a non Trumpist in the primary or for a Democrat or Independent in the general.  Doing that is effectively 2 votes. One Trump would normally have had and then one for his opponent.

[yossarian22c]

But now he's lost, and his popularity is at an all time low.  His disapproval is at an all time high. He probably couldn't win in Alabama.  He couldn't win the Georgia.  People know this now.  It's proven.  People's opinions are not going to change on L'Orange except in one direction.  He's not going to win any new adherents. 

I still think he wins a Republican primary. Particularly if the field is more than 2 people. Which is why I don't understand why Mitch and the wanna be presidents in 2024 don't concoct a scheme to get Trump convicted and banned from the 2024 race.

[Grant]

Donald and Aris,

As a former Republican, I hope Donald is right, but am afraid Aris will end up being right.  Normally I would agree with Donald that in the past, a 1 term president would be no threat in future runs.  They would normally move into the elder statesmen roll (see Bush and Carter or even Ford).

I have to agree with this. 

As Aris points out, many of the conservatives who really dislike Trump had already moved away from him and the party, even in 2016.  So I will continue to support any one who runs against Trump, or a Trump supporter, in the future.

I know tens of thousands of Republicans have left the party since Jan 6.  The question is will they stay away in 2022 and 2024, or will they cave when it comes down to pulling the lever for a Democrat?  It really is not enough for them to not vote for Trump and Trumpist.  We need them to vote for the people running against them, whether it is for a non Trumpist in the primary or for a Democrat or Independent in the general.  Doing that is effectively 2 votes. One Trump would normally have had and then one for his opponent.

I think this is a key, and have admitted that it's a problem.  The ability of trumpism to thrive depends on Republicans who have left the party returning if an establishment Republican runs for the nomination in 2024.  I think it would help to identify possible candidates in 2024. 

Yossarian said:

I still think he wins a Republican primary. Particularly if the field is more than 2 people. Which is why I don't understand why Mitch and the wanna be presidents in 2024 don't concoct a scheme to get Trump convicted and banned from the 2024 race.

I think the key here is what the Trumpy candidates do if Trump decides to run again.  Right now they're all scared of him and his base.  That can change in 3 years, but no guarantee.  I honestly think Cruz would still run because he wants to be President THAT BAD.  I don't really see any true Trumpist candidates running for President, just Trumpy ones.  The other part is of course how many establishment republicans rejoin the party to support an establishment candidate.  I honestly feel that in open primaries, Trump cannot win.  I feel independents have moved away from him forever.  That leaves him only able to win in closed primaries. 

[msquared]

I am also surprised that more Repubs in the Senate are not moving to convict him on the impeachment, since then they can go the next step and prevent him from holding public office ever again. The question is who is willing to take the bullet?  There would be blow back from the Trumpist, and some of the current Senators who would vote to convict might loose their seats.  But if a few decided to retire (Portman) and then had sudden attacks of responsibility, you might get enough Senators to convict.

Not that I think it will really happen.  There are no real party leaders right now.

[Grant]

I am also surprised that more Repubs in the Senate are not moving to convict him on the impeachment, since then they can go the next step and prevent him from holding public office ever again. The question is who is willing to take the bullet?  There would be blow back from the Trumpist, and some of the current Senators who would vote to convict might loose their seats.  But if a few decided to retire (Portman) and then had sudden attacks of responsibility, you might get enough Senators to convict.

Not that I think it will really happen.  There are no real party leaders right now.

I think some will, but certainly not enough.  More than last time.  I don't know who is giving them advice or how they are reading the base but I think they're reading it wrong.  But I've been wrong before and probably will again. 

I think there are party leaders but they are stuck between trying to please Trump and the base, pleasing just the base, or pleasing nobody.  Pleasing nobody probably isn't the best way to go about things but we'll see how Mitt Romney does in his next senate election.  Cocaine Mitch seems to be trying to thread the needle.  Good politics but Christ and Trumpists might find him lukewarm. 

I think people are constantly overestimating Trump's popularity with the majority of the Republican base.  Yes, there are crazies that believe the man is the second coming of Christ, but they're in the minority.  I tend to believe, from the conversations I've had, and with arguments with Trump supporters on here, that the majority of them just don't like establishment Republicanism or neoconservatism.  I think the majority of them really wish that Trump wasn't Trump.  I'm sure they'd rather have somebody like Pence or Rubio or Haley who were anti-establishment and did Trump type policies, while not being a dirtbag.  They defended Trump while he was still "they're guy", but he's really not "they're guy" anymore.  Somebody else is coming, just like I mentioned before. 

[yossarian22c]

I think people are constantly overestimating Trump's popularity with the majority of the Republican base.  Yes, there are crazies that believe the man is the second coming of Christ, but they're in the minority.  I tend to believe, from the conversations I've had, and with arguments with Trump supporters on here, that the majority of them just don't like establishment Republicanism or neoconservatism.  I think the majority of them really wish that Trump wasn't Trump.  I'm sure they'd rather have somebody like Pence or Rubio or Haley who were anti-establishment and did Trump type policies, while not being a dirtbag.  They defended Trump while he was still "they're guy", but he's really not "they're guy" anymore.  Somebody else is coming, just like I mentioned before.

There isn't room on the stage until Trump exits it. Which is why I'm not sure why Mitch isn't getting all the retiring Republican senators along with the 5 who voted that the trial wasn't unconstitutional to convict the dirtbag and remove him from the playing field. Or the ones who just won re-election. By 2026 I don't think they would have as much to fear if Trump is taken off the board in 2024.

[Grant]

There isn't room on the stage until Trump exits it.

Meh.  I disagree.  I don't think there is any evidence to really back up that assertion, though I admit there really isn't any evidence against it either, except that plenty of Republicans have stood against Trump, just not in an election, and they're still around. 

[yossarian22c]

There isn't room on the stage until Trump exits it.

Meh.  I disagree.  I don't think there is any evidence to really back up that assertion, though I admit there really isn't any evidence against it either, except that plenty of Republicans have stood against Trump, just not in an election, and they're still around.

Romney? Anyone else? They are already talking about trying to primary Cheney in Wyoming.

[TheDrake]

I also think people need to worry about generational Trumps. I mean, its not exactly the Hand of Oberon, but I could see Don Jr and Ivanka stepping into the legacy.

nobody likes the media

Point of order, whole bunch of people lap up their media of choice.

[Grant]

Romney? Anyone else? They are already talking about trying to primary Cheney in Wyoming.

Susan Collins.  Lisa Murkowski.  Yes, Cheney.  Tom Rice.  Dan Newhouse. Adam Kinzinger.  Anthony Gonzales.  Fred Upton.  Jaime Beutler.  Peter Meijer.  John Katko.  David Valadao. 

Some people who have publicly disagreed:   

Cocaine Mitch. Mike Pence. Ben Sasse. Patrick Toomey. Probably even Rand Paul (barf).  Lindsay Graham when he's heavily intoxicated. 

Those are just the in-office politicians.  Pundits and past office holders:

Dick Cheney.  W Bush.  Jeb Bush.  Carley Fiorina.  Just about everybody else in a cabinet position.  Paul Ryan.

The NR gang: Lowery.  Cooke.  Williamson.  Nordlinger.  French.  Goldberg.  Ponnuru. 
The Weekly Standard Gang:  Kristol.  Hayes. 
George Will.  Krauthammer, though he's dead. Both used to be regulars on Fox. 
The guru-in-chief Yuval Levin.
Plenty of people at Cato Institute, though their libertarian, they still used to vote Republican. 

For every Republican politician that stands against Trump there is probably another one that won't do it publicly because they're scared of the base.  I see that changing in time. 

[Grant]

Point of order, whole bunch of people lap up their media of choice.

Point conceded.  But among the Trumpiest of Trumpists, even Fox is on the outs, hence they love OAN and Newsmax more, hence why Fox is stupidly racing to be more Trumpy. 

[yossarian22c]

Romney? Anyone else? They are already talking about trying to primary Cheney in Wyoming.

Susan Collins.  Lisa Murkowski.  Yes, Cheney.  Tom Rice.  Dan Newhouse. Adam Kinzinger.  Anthony Gonzales.  Fred Upton.  Jaime Beutler.  Peter Meijer.  John Katko.  David Valadao. 

Some people who have publicly disagreed:   

Cocaine Mitch. Mike Pence. Ben Sasse. Patrick Toomey. Probably even Rand Paul (barf).  Lindsay Graham when he's heavily intoxicated. 

Those are just the in-office politicians.  Pundits and past office holders:

Susan Collins.  Lisa Murkowski. Conceded.

But most of them didn't publicly disagree until after Jan 6th. We still have yet to see people in an election cycle disagree with him. And most of them are still being wishy washy about it. Mitch put out some strong statements but then voted to say the Senate had no power to try a president for actions during a lame duck session. He needed some excuse, because he pretty much came out and said Trump was guilty but now he needs a reason to acquit him in a trial. We'll see, Mitch just won his 6 year term. I think if he can get the rest of the votes for a conviction he'll join in. But he's only voting guilty if its a sure thing there will be a conviction. Retiring senators in Ohio and NC are outside chances at getting guilty votes. That gets you to 57. Need another 10. Doesn't seem likely. But strategically it seems reasonable to remove the Trump piece off the board for 2024.

[Grant]

But most of them didn't publicly disagree until after Jan 6th. We still have yet to see people in an election cycle disagree with him. And most of them are still being wishy washy about it. Mitch put out some strong statements but then voted to say the Senate had no power to try a president for actions during a lame duck session. He needed some excuse, because he pretty much came out and said Trump was guilty but now he needs a reason to acquit him in a trial. We'll see, Mitch just won his 6 year term. I think if he can get the rest of the votes for a conviction he'll join in. But he's only voting guilty if its a sure thing there will be a conviction. Retiring senators in Ohio and NC are outside chances at getting guilty votes. That gets you to 57. Need another 10. Doesn't seem likely. But strategically it seems reasonable to remove the Trump piece off the board for 2024.

See, I think we're using different yard sticks as to what constitutes "standing against Trump, or Trumpism".  You're pointing out only people that have or will likely vote for impeachment.  That includes all those Republican Representatives I mentioned by the way. 

Personally, I count anyone as standing against Trump if they have publicly called out the President when they thought he was wrong.  That widens the field.  To me, this shows that you can indeed stand against Trump, criticize him publicly, as a Republican politician, and get away with it and stay on the stage.  The list of Republicans who have criticized or stood against Trump on this or that matter is pretty wide.  They're still around.  Some of them by kissing up to Trump and his base (Graham).  Some of them by just keeping their heads low and picking their fights (Sasse) and some of them by just being "good" politicians (Cocaine Mitch).  Some of them are not still around (Ryan, Flake, McCain). I'll remind everyone that they tried to primary Ryan and lost dismally. 

 But as usual your prime examples are McCain and Romney.  They're still standing.  Just today Graham, of all people, backed up Liz Cheney.  As time goes on, you're going to see more and more Republicans try to distance themselves from Trump the person and the QAnon cultists. 

Already a group of 10 Republican Senators are breaking ranks to negotiate with the Biden administration.  This basically creates a Republican caucus in the Senate that circumvents Cocaine Mitch.  Yes, they will be attacked, hard, as traitors by the other Republicans, and in the media by people like Hannity and Limbaugh.  Last time this criticism worked in 2013 on immigration reform.  We'll see if the criticism holds up this time.  Much is going to depend on where Heritage, Cato, and National Review go.  Last time they both came down on the side of the party.  Let's see what happens this time. 

[TheDeamon]

Ignoring his power doesn't make it disappear.

Ignoring Trump is the best solution to Trump. If the press had done that in 2015/2016 rather than breathlessly report on him because of ratings, he wouldn't have gained traction in the primaries, never mind pull off an electoral win.

[TheDeamon]

In three years they're all going to gather to figure out who's going to be the new daddy.  It most likely won't be Trump.  If he's still alive he's going to probably have some convictions around his neck.  That will be the end.  Your best bet at this point for a Trumpy successor daddy is probably Nikki Haley of all people.

Depending on where the Democrats go in the next couple of years, 2024 could be a very good Romney year unless a major third party has entered the scene by then.

[TheDeamon]

He is not in power. He will never be re-elected.  If he tries to run again, he will guarantee a loss for the Republicans worse than this time around.

I heard that claim back in 2016 too. That if he won the Republican primary, he'd be certainly soundly defeated by Hillary.

I didn't claim that back then. I was saying he'd be likely to win against Hillary because he was such an obviously bad choice.

I think you're all being too optimistic in your claims that Trump's done and over with. Nothing I've seen indicates it. Everything to me indicates the Republican party is being purged of non-Trumpists. If he's acquitted, which he likely will be, he'll resume his attack on democracy tenfold.

Trump's done, his kids might be another matter. As it is, there are too many things up in the air at present to even begin to predict what 2024 is going to look like politically right now.

[TheDeamon]

I am also surprised that more Repubs in the Senate are not moving to convict him on the impeachment, since then they can go the next step and prevent him from holding public office ever again. The question is who is willing to take the bullet?  There would be blow back from the Trumpist, and some of the current Senators who would vote to convict might loose their seats.  But if a few decided to retire (Portman) and then had sudden attacks of responsibility, you might get enough Senators to convict.

Not that I think it will really happen.  There are no real party leaders right now.

Impeachment is pointless, it's entirely political and nothing good can come from it, regardless of the outcome. Having it die on the vine would be preferred, but won't happen.

Let the federal investigators and prosecutors do their jobs and have their day in court, not congress, and convict him there. That will be when justice is getting served. Everything else is theater.