I’ll leave for another day or a wiser person how increased political polarization and the GOP response to it has given us the Trump candidacy. What is relevant now: political polarization makes a Trump victory more likely, but also gives the muddled middle a meaningful opportunity to torpedo Trump’s candidacy.
For our purposes, the polarization of our national politics has turned our government into a team sport. The polarization is arguably a positive trend, as the prior era of bi-partisanship was at least in part a function of forces of racial bigotry. And, polarization clarifies the parties’ policy objectives.
But, along with that clarification comes simpler power dynamics. If you, as an elected official, wish to see your policy objectives made enduring law, your team needs to sit atop most or all of the iron thrones: presidency, house majority, senate (super-)majority, and supreme court. If you are an elected Republican, the calculus for supporting the Republican nominee, no matter how vile his personal character, is easy. A nominal Republican will support tax cuts, reduce the safety net, support restrictions on abortion and other women’s health access, deny climate change, &c. A Democrat president, any Democrat, will veto your favorite legislation and nominate the wrong judges. If the outcome is bad enough, Democrats might actually get to pass legislation.
While Republican leaders are going to get vilified for their support of Trump, the rational decision — if they want to further their policy objectives — is to hold their noses, stick it out, and pray that somehow Clinton loses. Four years of Trump is just not as bad as enduring majority of Ruth Bader Ginsburgs. Bi-partisanship is a relic. And, abandoning Trump could very well have catastrophic impact down ticket.
There is no honor in politics. Ryan, McConnell, McCain and the rest are just not going to renounce his candidacy. His words and actions, maybe. But, not his candidacy.
Enter the moderates. If we think about the problem just in terms of the Supreme Court, an answer reveals itself. Some group of moderates from both parties could easily fashion some sort of agreement where the group Republicans would endorse Clinton and, in exchange, the group Democrats would promise to vote against particularly liberal nominees. The Susan Collinses of the world abandoning ship would be the end of Trump.
It wouldn’t have to be limited to the Supreme Court, though that might be enough. Such an agreement might be extended to lower courts and to specific legislative areas. The point is that moderate Republicans could put a stake through the heart of Trump’s campaign, without exposing the country to the perils of a progressive Clinton presidency. And, moderate Democrats would be their bi-partisan partners-in-crime.
Personally, I wouldn’t favor such saviors. I like Clinton’s odds. And, a bunch of Ruth Bader Ginsburgs would be a welcome tonic to the right’s efforts to empower corporations and the rich, deprive women of control over their bodies, deny climate change, &c. Following the philosophy of our greatest living politician (Pelosi, not Warren), when there is an opportunity to do good, we should seize it with two hands and make the most of it. The pendulum will swing back on its own. No need to help.
But, moderates have a rare opportunity, themselves, if they recognize it.
Hillary’s going to win. Why not just win? If Susan Collins thinks Trump isn’t presidential and doesn’t want to be tarred with him, that should be its own motivation to not endorse him (as Rep. Hanna did today).
He won. Fair and Square. Against all odds and desires.
WE did not cheat to bring about the result like the DNC did. We don’t LIKE the verdict of the voters, but we are bound by it.
How do you repudiate a candidacy that the electorate has chosen? Bu saying WE know better than YOU do like the Democrats?
And before you get into your lame protestations about how Bernie couldn’t have won anyway – then why did you need to cheat?
the misogynistic and racist base of the GOP.
You guys must be so proud.
Stand up for what you think is right, even if it may be bad for your political career
…but none that I recall of actual cheating. There is absolutely nothing wrong with party leaders loudly proclaiming that they think their primary electorate chose the wrong person. If that is a “problem” it’s one the GOP has in spades this year. I’m not aware of any Democratic leader expressing reluctance or embarrassment by our choice.
And why did Amy Dacey resign with more party personnel moves expected on Tuesday, …if there was no actual cheating and nothing wrong with party leaders?
Thanks for your concern.
You missed the definition. Oh well. Can you tell me why both women have quit/resigned and more are headed to the door when no one did anything wrong and it was above board, on the level, and not unfair to fellow Democrats?
…to show bias on the part of DNC staff in a contested primary, or at very least it’s bad optics. Doesn’t mean they cheated.
Your Trump-induced cognitive dissonance is throwing off your curmudgeon game.
WE (BMG) most certainly did not cheat. There is also no evidence that the DNC cheated — best evidence is that some people outright favored HRC, and some may have wanted to act badly. But there is no evidence of actual actions, as far as I’ve seen.
And yes, it would not have mattered. But you know how paranoid people get, every threat must be taken seriously, or one might be accused of not worrying enough. So there’s your “need,” but it looks like nothing was done.
I think that in the universe I live in, “fair and square” means — first and foremost — without lies. The entire Donald Trump phenomenon — from his very first scam to his current gig — is based on lies, distortions, and absolute amorality. The man appears to lack even a passing acquaintance with “the truth”.
You might want to take another look at the votes actually cast:
Democratic primary results (Choose “2016 Democratic” in “Primary by Year”):
Clinton: 17,140,502
Sanders: 13,222,780
others: 477,954
Total: 30,841,236
Republican primary results (Choose “2016 Republican” in “Primary by Year”):
Trump: 13,303,010
Cruz: 7,392,884
Rubio: 3,352,204
Others: 5,588,283
Total: 29,636,381
I note that Bernie Sanders drew more primary votes than Mr. Trump, as did Ms. Clinton. Current polling says that about 90% of those who voted for Mr. Sanders in the primary prefer Ms. Clinton to Mr. Trump.
Mr. Sanders and Ms. Clinton together drew 30,363,282 primary votes — compared to 13,303,010 for Mr. Trump.
I don’t know what you see when you examine the GOP candidates and those who voted for them. What I see is a collection of clowns, buffoons, and religious extremists who all lost to a world-class clown, buffoon, and shyster. The legitimate GOP candidates failed to achieve more than a handful of votes (Mr. Kasich leading the way and unable to break out of the single digits).
I agree with you that Donald Trump won a majority of GOP primary votes. That alone speaks eloquently to what the GOP has become.
ditched Trump in a New York minute if they could have:
in the privacy of the voting booth. But will tell their male relatives they voted for him.
As has been their right since 1921. The one Republican woman who regularly contributes to this forum has been adamant that she won’t be voting for either Clinton or Trump. And most Republican women I know aren’t shy about telling the men in their life their political opinions.
(shrugs)
That’s precisely why the original comment was offensive and ill informed.
…then any number of other predictions people, including many of us, make from time to time about how a certain demographic will vote?
of their womenfolk failing to be submissive.
They’re going to vote like heroes.
This strategy will successfully elect Clinton to the Presidency, but it will also lead to continued divided government. Most downballot Republicans are proving immune to being dragged down by Trump. On the House side, this is due to the brilliant RSLC statehouse strategy from seven years ago that gave them House control for a full decade insulated from the winds of popular votes. On the Senate side, it’s the result of McConnell’s pitch that Americans will prefer Clinton to Trump but will want a Republican Congress to keep her honest.
A coalition committed to a populist progressive economic program that was more dexterous on cultural issues is a more sustainable governing coalition than our present one which is solidly socially progressive but economically dexterous. The greatest potential of the Sanders candidacy is the assembling of such a coalition, and it’s a potential Hillary will have a hard time fulfilling for reasons beyond her control (divided government, her polarization) and within her control (her cautious incrementalism leading to bad compromise).
We will see, this is an existential election where many, many Republicans and right leaning independents will defect to the Democratic nominee but it won’t have the downballot impact people are predicting nor will it be a long term realignment.
..where I could actually sympathize with ticket-splitting. Most of the time it baffles me that one would vote for someone for President, presumably because you prefer that person’s agenda, but also vote for someone committed to undermining that agenda at every turn. I don’t want to concede it either, however. Dem candidates should blanket the airwaves with ads showing their opponent morphing into Trump.
I actually have a lot of respect for Mark Kirk, though I’ve liked Tammy Duckworth since her 2006 race. Interesting to see how that one plays out.
majority or not?
More obstruction or less. How’s that tough?
He went out on a limb for marriage equality, background checks, immigration reform and he is only Republican senator to support Merrick Garland. He has explicitly said he won’t vote for Trump. It’s similar to Whitehouse v. Chaffee in 2006.
It’s the rare race this cycle where both candidates are respectable in my view, that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t vote for Duckworth anymore than it means I wouldn’t have voted for Whitehouse. But I’m a Cambridge born liberal. To the Glencoe moderate, it may be tempting to split the ticket. That’s all I meant.