X Close

Will a Trumpian party destroy the GOP? The Republicans have always been shaped by insurgencies

Based (Drew Angerer/Getty Images)


February 10, 2023   7 mins

Former president Donald Trump has again raised the spectre of a schism in the Republican Party. Last Thursday, he told conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt that he wouldn’t commit to backing the party’s nominee. This will strike many observers as a redux of 2016, when Trump made waves during the primaries for refusing to make such a commitment. Then, he teased a third-party run. Indeed, Trump has repeatedly hinted at running as an independent — and even did so briefly in 2000, when he competed for the Reform Party nomination. In the wake of the 2020 election, Trump floated the idea of launching a “MAGA Party” or “Patriot Party” — and last December shared an article on his Truth Social platform that urged him to do just that. 

It’s easy to argue that Trump is merely ginning up interest for a Republican rerun by threatening to leave, along with the quarter of would-be Republican voters who a recent Bulwark poll found would follow him. But that same poll also found that a considerable majority of Republicans want new leadership. Trump, for all his bluster, knows it. Perhaps he’s decided that if he can’t be a Republican president, no one can. If enough defectors remain committed to him, he will surely cost the Republicans the next presidential election.

History offers a fairly direct parallel. A similar Republican split occurred in 1912, when former president Theodore Roosevelt — unhappy with what he perceived as the unduly pro-business policies of his handpicked successor William Howard Taft — returned to challenge him. After losing the nomination to Taft at the Republican convention, despite outperforming him in the then-minority of state primaries in which registered Republicans participated, Roosevelt launched his own Progressive Party. Despite Taft’s considerable incumbency advantage, Roosevelt outpolled him in the general election, launching a characteristically vigorous campaign that saw him not only survive an assassination attempt but finish the speech he was giving with the assassin’s bullet lodged in his chest. Roosevelt siphoned enough support from Taft that Democrat Woodrow Wilson triumphed in an electoral-vote landslide, while winning a mere 42% of the popular vote.

The United States is uniquely vulnerable to this sort of third-party disruption, due to the first-past-the-post voting system that awards all of a state’s electoral votes to the highest-polling candidate, regardless of how close the popular vote is in those states. In 1912, Roosevelt and Taft received a combined 51% of the popular vote — yet carried only eight states between them. Owing to this all-or-nothing system, America offers perhaps the finest representation of French theorist Jean Baudrillard’s formula of bipartite alternation: “The one-party totalitarian regime is an unstable form — it defuses the political scene, it no longer assures the feed-back of public opinion
[but] alternation is the end of the end of representation.” In any particular presidential election, a third party — even a well-supported one such as Theodore Roosevelt’s Progressive Party — has little chance of achieving any kind of representation. However, in the longer term, a third party can be truly disruptive. 

Here, then, is the crux of the threat presented by Trump, roughly akin to the “nuclear option” in America’s political duopoly: he could wreck the Republican Party in this election and perhaps even destroy it for good, while creating a new second party to take its place. It would be a fate that hadn’t befallen an American political party since the Republican Party emerged in 1854 out of the ashes of the Whig Party, the latter badly fractured by insoluble arguments over slavery. Before that, it hadn’t happened since the Federalist Party — America’s first true political party — had essentially imploded during the War of 1812. It lost its legislative majorities forever to the Democratic-Republican Party, the precursor of today’s Democratic Party.  

But for the most part, American third-party insurgencies have merely cost one or the other party the general election. American Independent Party candidate George Wallace wrestled five states in the Deep South from Democratic control in 1968. Reform Party nominee Ross Perot syphoned millions of economic-nationalist voters from the Republican Party in 1992 and 1996. These were damaging moments, occurring at times of acute national crisis — Wallace polled well with Southern voters seeking to preserve aspects of racial apartheid systems, while Perot appealed to anti-interventionist, anti-free trade Republicans.

Still, though these insurgent campaigns might have led to galling defeats, neither fundamentally reshaped American politics in the way the disappearance of the Federalists or Whigs had. In fact, Republicans, through the shrewd electoral strategising of Richard Nixon, found a way to claim those dispossessed Southern voters in 1972. And since the Nineties, ostensible isolationists and anti-interventionists in both parties — including, perhaps most successfully, Donald Trump in 2016 — have found ways to exploit what had briefly been Perot’s support base. Given their sprawling constituencies, it’s easier for both parties to integrate these aggrieved voters into their ranks — to “sheepdog” these wayward sons and daughters into the established parties using co-opted outsiders to bridge the gap. 

Nevertheless, though unlikely, the kind of “clean break” Trump could trigger does have the potential to fracture the Republican Party forever. And that is because, ever since Richard Nixon permanently enlarged the party by annexing the “Solid South” long critical to Democratic electoral success, the GOP has had a fundamental flaw. It originated in the 19th century as a Northern-centred, pro-business party opposed to both slavery and, eventually, labour unions; post-Nixon, the Republican Party has been permanently struggling with the challenge of uniting small businesspeople, evangelicals, foreign-policy hawks, isolationists, anti-tax libertarians, anti-government libertarians, localists, and economic nationalists. Various leaders, from Ronald Reagan to Trump himself, have fashioned uneasy alliances among these groups — but each settlement has seemed shakier than the previous. Trump, in particular, saw precisely how difficult this challenge could be: he entered Washington with a team of advisors that adhered more closely to the “America-First” principles of his campaign and left with a cabinet full of corporate Republicans, some of whom hurriedly denounced him shortly after he left office.

At the end of Trump’s presidency, the Republicans were indeed a “house divided”. And if the examples of the Federalists and Whigs offer anything of value for political observers today, it’s that divided parties might cease to be divided simply by ceasing to be at all. In the case of the Whigs, the newly-formed Republican Party addressed the main issues that had split them — free labour and opposition to slavery in the American territories — so there was simply no reason to keep such a large, fractious coalition alive. A more streamlined alternative had presented itself.  Now, the “big-tent” Republican Party may be faced with a challenge analogous to the Whig Party’s in the years immediately preceding the American Civil War. Is the future of the Right to be an interventionist, low-tax party still able to work with Wall Street and Nato? Or do the voters on this side want “America-First”, “MAGA”, and all of Trump’s unifying slogans?

While it is certainly possible to do all of these things — as the Whigs managed to maintain a balance from 1833 to 1856 — it may not be sustainable to do so. Republican politicians and voters who favour free trade and free movement of cheap labour may find themselves, like the Southern “Cotton Whigs” of the American antebellum period, unable to coexist with a MAGA base insistent on tighter border controls, tariffs, and heavier investment in internal industry. If so, Trump — by virtue of being the right person in the right place at the right time — may be able to bring about a permanent separation, likely forcing many Republicans in favour of free trade and free movement into the Democratic fold, just as “Cotton Whigs” joined the ranks of the Democrats.

All of this, however, will depend on the creation of a party that can step out of the shadow of its charismatic founder. Theodore Roosevelt’s Progressive Party, which outpolled the Republican Party 27% to 23% in 1912, offers an instructive example here. Roosevelt’s party shared certain overall policy goals with those American reformers dubbed lower-case “progressives”, such as a desire to more efficiently regulate large corporations and establish certain social welfare programmes. But its electoral fortunes waned significantly following that strong 1912 showing, disappearing by 1920. Its nickname, the “Bull Moose Party” — so acquired because Theodore Roosevelt had left the 1912 Republican convention claiming he felt “strong as a bull moose” — was apt, because its electoral performance depended to a considerable extent on the personal magnetism of one of the 20th century’s first great “cult of personality” figures, a personality who died in 1919 at the age of 61. 

A Trump-led party would be at risk of going the way of Roosevelt’s “Bull Moose” party, simply because he, like Roosevelt, is a sort of electoral ne plus ultra. Who would want to follow either act? Trump has, perhaps, a number of possible successors waiting in the wings, ranging from duelling Congresswomen Marjorie Taylor Greene and Lauren Boebert to his own sons, but this is akin to comparing a votive candle to the bright orange sun around which so much media commentary has turned.

Not only that, but the Trump of 2024 is not the insurgent social media star of 2016. He is still quite dove-ish on foreign policy but has lost considerable far-Right goodwill through his association with the era of lockdowns, which he at times supported, and mRNA vaccines, the development of which he considers a major achievement of his regime. The majority of those who identify as Republicans are looking for post-Trump alternatives. Though the former president holds double-digit leads over chief rival Florida governor Ron DeSantis in most polls, that lead vanishes if the single-digit support for various other mainstream candidates, a large hypothetical field ranging from former vice president Mike Pence to former South Carolina governor Nikki Haley, is aggregated and assigned to DeSantis. In other words, in the race of “Trump and every other Republican”, the contest is neck and neck and likely only to tighten as the name recognition of other candidates continues to grow.   

Given Trump’s status as an influencer himself, it would be instructive to watch which candidates the rising “based” or far-Right influencers choose to align themselves with. So far, rising stars such as “Libs of TikTok” account operator Chaya Raichik have managed to stay mum when it comes to choosing between Trump and Ron DeSantis. But it is these people whose considerable soft power could meme not just a movement but an entire party into existence. If Trump cannot win their support, his efforts to construct a party that will overthrow the Republicans and outlast him is likely to be no more successful than his effort to dethrone Twitter with a rival social media platform.


Oliver Bateman is a historian and journalist based in Pittsburgh. He blogs, vlogs, and podcasts at his Substack, Oliver Bateman Does the Work

MoustacheClubUS

Join the discussion


Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber


To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.

Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.

Subscribe
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

27 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Saul D
Saul D
1 year ago

I still think age makes it unlikely Trump will run at the end, but by declaring he is running, he retains a huge amount of influence both inside and outside the GOP, acts as a lightning rod for Democrat attacks, shielding other candidates, and can use it as protection against Democrat lawfare.
His presence also forces Congress to investigate on his behalf, because if he does stick around as the Republican candidate, then the Republicans will need to be doing everything possible in case he’s their candidate for president. If he dropped out, they could let it slide as water under the bridge.
And if he drops out closer to the election, then he becomes the king-maker for any other Republican candidate, which ultimately means the next candidate will also have to be Trumpian in outlook. But it’s Trump and who knows…?

Saul D
Saul D
1 year ago

I still think age makes it unlikely Trump will run at the end, but by declaring he is running, he retains a huge amount of influence both inside and outside the GOP, acts as a lightning rod for Democrat attacks, shielding other candidates, and can use it as protection against Democrat lawfare.
His presence also forces Congress to investigate on his behalf, because if he does stick around as the Republican candidate, then the Republicans will need to be doing everything possible in case he’s their candidate for president. If he dropped out, they could let it slide as water under the bridge.
And if he drops out closer to the election, then he becomes the king-maker for any other Republican candidate, which ultimately means the next candidate will also have to be Trumpian in outlook. But it’s Trump and who knows…?

Jay Chase
Jay Chase
1 year ago

This is a very even-handed analysis of Trump’s 2024 prospects but I just don’t see the Republicans being competitive on a national level again due to mass immigration and anti-assimilation social engineering by the US government.
There are close to 50 million foreign-born residing in the country, many of whom don’t speak English at home and most of whom choose to have little to no personal contact with anyone not from their homeland (based on what I’ve seen in California). They have almost 20 million American-born kids, which means 70 million Americans are isolated from mainstream American society. This is a societal disaster but serves the Democrats very well, as a weak social fabric and the resulting low-trust society leads people to turn to government to solve their problems, in particular women.
I’d like Tulsi Gabbard or Eric Adams to run for President as they have enough liberal cred to peel off some non-woke Democrats, but I think the 2022 mid-terms proved that the open-borders country club Republicans past support of amnesties and weak border control have permanently killed the national electoral prospects of their party.

Last edited 1 year ago by Jay Chase
Elliott Bjorn
Elliott Bjorn
1 year ago
Reply to  Jay Chase

The flaw in your argument is Trump won 2020, and he will in 2024.

Part of the reason? Those 50 million. Basically Democrats hate USA and all it stands for. We know this is a very popular position due to the complete capture of MSM, Social Media, Entertainment, and Education by the Postmodernist Liberal Left. ‘Who controls the narrative controls the sheep’ sort of thing. Only now a huge shift is coming. Twitter is outed and freed. Rumble, Odyssey , Getter, Substack, are disseminating truth.

The Covid Lies and horrors of the vax + Lockdowns causing a Shattering Inflation, the Insane WWIII Biden created, and from that the energy inflation and coming depression – the open Borders, Hunter and his laptop proving the Biden Crime Family are gangsters, Biden’s dementia embarrassing the office, and with his hyena sidekick – the Executive branch has not been pretty.. The Trans thing, the Top Secret Docs, the CRT, the FBI staging a coup and becoming a political Police force….the BLM and Antifa, the Cross Dressers in every School and Men in women’s bathrooms…….

Just so much….

You really have to hate Decency: Truth, Justice, and the American Way to vote Democrat, and I think not enough do for the Democrats to win in 2024. There is still some Honor in the American People. MAGA!

Simon Blanchard
Simon Blanchard
1 year ago
Reply to  Elliott Bjorn

I live for your posts.

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
1 year ago

You truly need to get out more.

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
1 year ago

You truly need to get out more.

Andrew Fisher
Andrew Fisher
1 year ago
Reply to  Elliott Bjorn

You are utterly delusional if you think Trump will win in 2024. I’m not a betting man, but take a bet?

The guy has not yet win the popular vote in any election he has contested. You know, you have to, er, actually persuade some Democrats to support the Republican candidate.

Last edited 1 year ago by Andrew Fisher
Jay Chase
Jay Chase
1 year ago
Reply to  Elliott Bjorn

If this was true the Republicans would have crushed the Democrats in the mid-terms last year. Sadly, even a moderate and high-profile candidate like Dr. Oz couldn’t defeat the brain-damaged ogre he was against.

Simon Blanchard
Simon Blanchard
1 year ago
Reply to  Elliott Bjorn

I live for your posts.

Andrew Fisher
Andrew Fisher
1 year ago
Reply to  Elliott Bjorn

You are utterly delusional if you think Trump will win in 2024. I’m not a betting man, but take a bet?

The guy has not yet win the popular vote in any election he has contested. You know, you have to, er, actually persuade some Democrats to support the Republican candidate.

Last edited 1 year ago by Andrew Fisher
Jay Chase
Jay Chase
1 year ago
Reply to  Elliott Bjorn

If this was true the Republicans would have crushed the Democrats in the mid-terms last year. Sadly, even a moderate and high-profile candidate like Dr. Oz couldn’t defeat the brain-damaged ogre he was against.

Jim Veenbaas
Jim Veenbaas
1 year ago
Reply to  Jay Chase

Hispanics have been shifting their support to GOP in a big way. Immigrants tend to be more conservative as well.

Jay Chase
Jay Chase
1 year ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

I live in a Hispanic majority district. Going from 22% of the Hispanic vote ten years ago to 28% today is not going to win elections. Every local non-woke candidate running here was crushed in last year’s mid-terms.

Jay Chase
Jay Chase
1 year ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

I live in a Hispanic majority district. Going from 22% of the Hispanic vote ten years ago to 28% today is not going to win elections. Every local non-woke candidate running here was crushed in last year’s mid-terms.

Rasmus Fogh
Rasmus Fogh
1 year ago
Reply to  Jay Chase

Honest curiosity: The US has had large and badly assimilated immigarnt communities before, Italians, Irish, … and they got assimilated eventually. Why and how is the curernt lot different?

Allison Barrows
Allison Barrows
1 year ago
Reply to  Rasmus Fogh

You said it yourself: assimilation. The “current lot” are not assimilating. The earlier immigrants came to these shore legally (I happen to be married to one), were required to have sponsors responsible for them, be disease-free and employed, and learn to speak, read, and write in English. My in-laws had to check in at the local police station every month for a status review until they became naturalized citizens.
Immigrants today are largely here illegally, trafficked by drug cartels. They don’t speak English and are often unskilled. Many of the young men pouring in are violent gang members. That’s the difference.

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
1 year ago

When were immigrants to the United States required to write or even speak English prior to arrival? In order to become citizens, or increase their chances of admission, yes.
The type of immigrants and a more widespread unwillingness to become well-integrated do present a growing and disruptive problem.
What percentage are violent gangsters or trafficked by cartels, either with data or in your own estimation? I’d like to know if this is quantified somewhere and not just called an epidemic or pointed out in specific instances.
I acknowledge that the border situation is a nightmare and that Democrats, as a group, seem unable and even unwilling to handle it. But the real problems you highlight have existed and grown for decades, under both Republican and Democratic administrations.

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
1 year ago

When were immigrants to the United States required to write or even speak English prior to arrival? In order to become citizens, or increase their chances of admission, yes.
The type of immigrants and a more widespread unwillingness to become well-integrated do present a growing and disruptive problem.
What percentage are violent gangsters or trafficked by cartels, either with data or in your own estimation? I’d like to know if this is quantified somewhere and not just called an epidemic or pointed out in specific instances.
I acknowledge that the border situation is a nightmare and that Democrats, as a group, seem unable and even unwilling to handle it. But the real problems you highlight have existed and grown for decades, under both Republican and Democratic administrations.

D Walsh
D Walsh
1 year ago
Reply to  Rasmus Fogh

Because Ireland and Italy are countries on the other side of the World, added to that many of the Irish had a head start because they had some English to begin with

Last edited 1 year ago by D Walsh
Warren Trees
Warren Trees
1 year ago
Reply to  Rasmus Fogh

The majority of the current lot has no interest in becoming American or learning our language. They simply want the free benefits. Completely different from the post WWII lot, who loved their new country and became solid Americans at a time when there were no benefits, just opportunity.

Julian Farrows
Julian Farrows
1 year ago
Reply to  Warren Trees

I think many migrants, particularly those from south of the border, have assimilated pretty well. The mistakes the Democrats make is believing that many of these immigrants hate America and so rely on an Anti-American narratives to sway these potential voters. Almost every working Hispanic dislikes the Democrat party intensely, especially started calling them ‘Latinx’. Some of them are among the most MAGA people I know.
In my experience most Americans just get on with their lives. It’s just that the media exaggerates loves to put a racial spin on every altercation between white people and other ethnicities, especially one which valorizes non-whites and vilifies whites. It’s all about dividing the working class by race to stop them from forming a united front against powerful interests.

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
1 year ago
Reply to  Julian Farrows

This is a major overstatement: “Almost every working Hispanic dislikes the Democrat party intensely”
Even with increased support for Trump in 2020, Biden won the Hispanic vote by 24 points (59 to 38), 17 among Hispanic men. So while many surely dislike the Democrats, a majority dislike Trump more. Of course as a group, Latinos (the term that’s normally used where I live, on the left coast) tend to be socially, not as fiscally conservative.
I agree there are plenty of MAGA fans among Latino men. I’ve come across many, especially when I lived in Salinas, CA. But how many non-working Hispanics have you met? The lazy Mexican stereotype (not saying you invoked it) seems especially lazy and inaccurate to me .

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
1 year ago
Reply to  Julian Farrows

This is a major overstatement: “Almost every working Hispanic dislikes the Democrat party intensely”
Even with increased support for Trump in 2020, Biden won the Hispanic vote by 24 points (59 to 38), 17 among Hispanic men. So while many surely dislike the Democrats, a majority dislike Trump more. Of course as a group, Latinos (the term that’s normally used where I live, on the left coast) tend to be socially, not as fiscally conservative.
I agree there are plenty of MAGA fans among Latino men. I’ve come across many, especially when I lived in Salinas, CA. But how many non-working Hispanics have you met? The lazy Mexican stereotype (not saying you invoked it) seems especially lazy and inaccurate to me .

Julian Farrows
Julian Farrows
1 year ago
Reply to  Warren Trees

I think many migrants, particularly those from south of the border, have assimilated pretty well. The mistakes the Democrats make is believing that many of these immigrants hate America and so rely on an Anti-American narratives to sway these potential voters. Almost every working Hispanic dislikes the Democrat party intensely, especially started calling them ‘Latinx’. Some of them are among the most MAGA people I know.
In my experience most Americans just get on with their lives. It’s just that the media exaggerates loves to put a racial spin on every altercation between white people and other ethnicities, especially one which valorizes non-whites and vilifies whites. It’s all about dividing the working class by race to stop them from forming a united front against powerful interests.

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
1 year ago
Reply to  Rasmus Fogh

Two things:
1) “big tent whiteness” eventually took in folks who were regarded as “not quite white” such as Italian, Poles, and my ancestral folks, the Irish. So far it seems the tent and our society can’t get past the color fixation, but that may be less and less true for many Asians and Latinos. (Would that the whole issue became an historical relic).
2) Fewer arriving populations even want assimilation, with more among the children of immigrants regarding it as a dirty word too, even if they are very Americanized in reality. We should seek acculturation and societal common cause without hoping for a melting pot result that was never real and is now outdated even as a goal.

Rasmus Fogh
Rasmus Fogh
1 year ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

Thanks for some informative posts. I would agree with you, but I fear that “acculturation and societal common cause without hoping for a melting pot result” is tricky. Ultimately you need all the major groups to feel as part of a ‘we’, as being in some sense one group, for democracy to work well. The US has managed that very well indeed, historically (always excepting the black population, which is a particular problem) – but how loose can you make the common acculturation before the groups no longer feel the necessary common cause?

Last edited 1 year ago by Rasmus Fogh
Rasmus Fogh
Rasmus Fogh
1 year ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

Thanks for some informative posts. I would agree with you, but I fear that “acculturation and societal common cause without hoping for a melting pot result” is tricky. Ultimately you need all the major groups to feel as part of a ‘we’, as being in some sense one group, for democracy to work well. The US has managed that very well indeed, historically (always excepting the black population, which is a particular problem) – but how loose can you make the common acculturation before the groups no longer feel the necessary common cause?

Last edited 1 year ago by Rasmus Fogh
Allison Barrows
Allison Barrows
1 year ago
Reply to  Rasmus Fogh

You said it yourself: assimilation. The “current lot” are not assimilating. The earlier immigrants came to these shore legally (I happen to be married to one), were required to have sponsors responsible for them, be disease-free and employed, and learn to speak, read, and write in English. My in-laws had to check in at the local police station every month for a status review until they became naturalized citizens.
Immigrants today are largely here illegally, trafficked by drug cartels. They don’t speak English and are often unskilled. Many of the young men pouring in are violent gang members. That’s the difference.

D Walsh
D Walsh
1 year ago
Reply to  Rasmus Fogh

Because Ireland and Italy are countries on the other side of the World, added to that many of the Irish had a head start because they had some English to begin with

Last edited 1 year ago by D Walsh
Warren Trees
Warren Trees
1 year ago
Reply to  Rasmus Fogh

The majority of the current lot has no interest in becoming American or learning our language. They simply want the free benefits. Completely different from the post WWII lot, who loved their new country and became solid Americans at a time when there were no benefits, just opportunity.

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
1 year ago
Reply to  Rasmus Fogh

Two things:
1) “big tent whiteness” eventually took in folks who were regarded as “not quite white” such as Italian, Poles, and my ancestral folks, the Irish. So far it seems the tent and our society can’t get past the color fixation, but that may be less and less true for many Asians and Latinos. (Would that the whole issue became an historical relic).
2) Fewer arriving populations even want assimilation, with more among the children of immigrants regarding it as a dirty word too, even if they are very Americanized in reality. We should seek acculturation and societal common cause without hoping for a melting pot result that was never real and is now outdated even as a goal.

Elliott Bjorn
Elliott Bjorn
1 year ago
Reply to  Jay Chase

The flaw in your argument is Trump won 2020, and he will in 2024.

Part of the reason? Those 50 million. Basically Democrats hate USA and all it stands for. We know this is a very popular position due to the complete capture of MSM, Social Media, Entertainment, and Education by the Postmodernist Liberal Left. ‘Who controls the narrative controls the sheep’ sort of thing. Only now a huge shift is coming. Twitter is outed and freed. Rumble, Odyssey , Getter, Substack, are disseminating truth.

The Covid Lies and horrors of the vax + Lockdowns causing a Shattering Inflation, the Insane WWIII Biden created, and from that the energy inflation and coming depression – the open Borders, Hunter and his laptop proving the Biden Crime Family are gangsters, Biden’s dementia embarrassing the office, and with his hyena sidekick – the Executive branch has not been pretty.. The Trans thing, the Top Secret Docs, the CRT, the FBI staging a coup and becoming a political Police force….the BLM and Antifa, the Cross Dressers in every School and Men in women’s bathrooms…….

Just so much….

You really have to hate Decency: Truth, Justice, and the American Way to vote Democrat, and I think not enough do for the Democrats to win in 2024. There is still some Honor in the American People. MAGA!

Jim Veenbaas
Jim Veenbaas
1 year ago
Reply to  Jay Chase

Hispanics have been shifting their support to GOP in a big way. Immigrants tend to be more conservative as well.

Rasmus Fogh
Rasmus Fogh
1 year ago
Reply to  Jay Chase

Honest curiosity: The US has had large and badly assimilated immigarnt communities before, Italians, Irish, … and they got assimilated eventually. Why and how is the curernt lot different?

Jay Chase
Jay Chase
1 year ago

This is a very even-handed analysis of Trump’s 2024 prospects but I just don’t see the Republicans being competitive on a national level again due to mass immigration and anti-assimilation social engineering by the US government.
There are close to 50 million foreign-born residing in the country, many of whom don’t speak English at home and most of whom choose to have little to no personal contact with anyone not from their homeland (based on what I’ve seen in California). They have almost 20 million American-born kids, which means 70 million Americans are isolated from mainstream American society. This is a societal disaster but serves the Democrats very well, as a weak social fabric and the resulting low-trust society leads people to turn to government to solve their problems, in particular women.
I’d like Tulsi Gabbard or Eric Adams to run for President as they have enough liberal cred to peel off some non-woke Democrats, but I think the 2022 mid-terms proved that the open-borders country club Republicans past support of amnesties and weak border control have permanently killed the national electoral prospects of their party.

Last edited 1 year ago by Jay Chase
Jim Veenbaas
Jim Veenbaas
1 year ago

Trump might form a third party for the next election, but he will lose interest afterwards and fade away. He has no interest in leading a political party. He wants to be president and that’s it.

The Republicans have two choices – lose with Trump or roll the dice with a new leader. Independents don’t like Trump and they likely represent a larger share of voters than hardcore Trump supporters.

Paul Hendricks
Paul Hendricks
1 year ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

There are almost certainly more Trump supporters, or let’s call them Trump voters, than there are independents who definitely won’t vote for Trump. And of these the only ones who really matter are in “swing states”.

It seems to me people who didn’t normally vote, probably a lot of them registered Democrats, turned out for Biden in Georgia for example, and made a difference. Will these people remain so enthusiastic, having been confronted with the reality of the Biden administration? I doubt it.

It’s not at all clear to me that Trump is such a losing prospect. In any case much of his agenda remains popular and the GOP will have to accommodate this fact.

Jim Veenbaas
Jim Veenbaas
1 year ago
Reply to  Paul Hendricks

In the last election, a Gallup poll found 36% of voters considered themselves independent. That’s more than either of the other two parties.

Paul Hendricks
Paul Hendricks
1 year ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

I concluded that indeed many of those independents who voted, voted for Trump.

I’ll add that my view is that US polls consistently under-represent conservatives in general, who are less likely to openly state their views in our hysterical Puritan atmosphere.

Paul Hendricks
Paul Hendricks
1 year ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

I concluded that indeed many of those independents who voted, voted for Trump.

I’ll add that my view is that US polls consistently under-represent conservatives in general, who are less likely to openly state their views in our hysterical Puritan atmosphere.

Jim Veenbaas
Jim Veenbaas
1 year ago
Reply to  Paul Hendricks

In the last election, a Gallup poll found 36% of voters considered themselves independent. That’s more than either of the other two parties.

Paul Hendricks
Paul Hendricks
1 year ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

There are almost certainly more Trump supporters, or let’s call them Trump voters, than there are independents who definitely won’t vote for Trump. And of these the only ones who really matter are in “swing states”.

It seems to me people who didn’t normally vote, probably a lot of them registered Democrats, turned out for Biden in Georgia for example, and made a difference. Will these people remain so enthusiastic, having been confronted with the reality of the Biden administration? I doubt it.

It’s not at all clear to me that Trump is such a losing prospect. In any case much of his agenda remains popular and the GOP will have to accommodate this fact.

Jim Veenbaas
Jim Veenbaas
1 year ago

Trump might form a third party for the next election, but he will lose interest afterwards and fade away. He has no interest in leading a political party. He wants to be president and that’s it.

The Republicans have two choices – lose with Trump or roll the dice with a new leader. Independents don’t like Trump and they likely represent a larger share of voters than hardcore Trump supporters.

Paul Hendricks
Paul Hendricks
1 year ago

Whatever the result of the primary, the GOP will continue to become more “Trumpian.”

Paul Hendricks
Paul Hendricks
1 year ago

Whatever the result of the primary, the GOP will continue to become more “Trumpian.”

Neil Ross
Neil Ross
1 year ago

Meanwhile the Democrats are completely in tune with each other!! Hi Bernie!

Neil Ross
Neil Ross
1 year ago

Meanwhile the Democrats are completely in tune with each other!! Hi Bernie!

j watson
j watson
1 year ago

Let’s see if Jack Smith makes all this irrelevant.

j watson
j watson
1 year ago

Let’s see if Jack Smith makes all this irrelevant.

Bryan Dale
Bryan Dale
1 year ago

You’re overstating the power of the Republican party’s RINO rump. There is very little chance that the 2024 nominee will be anyone other than Trump, barring his death or serious health problems. The fact is, he could destroy the Republican Party if it were to somehow nominate someone else, because there is no more popular politician in the United States than Donald Trump. He will be the nominee and, if the election is conducted fairly, he will once again be elected president.

Andrew Fisher
Andrew Fisher
1 year ago
Reply to  Bryan Dale

A slightly eccentric definition of ‘most popular’ there, to put it mildly. Trump was decidedly less popular than Biden in an actual election in 2020, losing by 74 million to 81 million in the popular vote, pretty much a 10% deficit.

The delusions of the Right look like losing yet another election.

Andrew Fisher
Andrew Fisher
1 year ago
Reply to  Bryan Dale

A slightly eccentric definition of ‘most popular’ there, to put it mildly. Trump was decidedly less popular than Biden in an actual election in 2020, losing by 74 million to 81 million in the popular vote, pretty much a 10% deficit.

The delusions of the Right look like losing yet another election.

Bryan Dale
Bryan Dale
1 year ago

You’re overstating the power of the Republican party’s RINO rump. There is very little chance that the 2024 nominee will be anyone other than Trump, barring his death or serious health problems. The fact is, he could destroy the Republican Party if it were to somehow nominate someone else, because there is no more popular politician in the United States than Donald Trump. He will be the nominee and, if the election is conducted fairly, he will once again be elected president.