So far Donald Trump, even silenced holds his own ….
He maybe down…
But NOT out….
A majority of Republican voters said if former President Trump were to start a new political party they would likely join, a new Hill-HarrisX poll finds.
Sixty-four percent of registered Republican voters in the Jan. 28-29 survey said they’d join a new political party led by the former president, including 32 percent who said they would very likely join.
By contrast, 36 percent of Republican respondents said they are either very or somewhat unlikely to join….
Why should Trump form a new political party?
He already has a party that he owns.
Oh there are few malcontents here and there.You always are going to have that but in it’s essentials?
The Republican Party remains The Trump Party
Money Jack….
‘His’ party can pay HIM…
Really this post is irrelevant to much of anything.
He isn’t going to form another party.
He’s a Republican and that he will remain.
Republican Sen Richard Shelby of Alabama will retire at the end of his term.
The seat is solidly Republican.
As I recall, Richard Shelby is a thoroughly honest man, and a former Democratic Senator who crossed the aisle.
Yes he was originally elected as a Democrat.Switched in the 90s I believe.
The Almanac of American Politics 2020 says that (after some close elections and rifts with the White House from the Boll Weevil perspective), Sen. Shelby crossed the aisle on the day after the G.O.P. regained the Senate in the Gingrich Wave of 1994-5.
I remember watching Senator Shelby cross the aisle the day after the 94 midterms. Bob Dole was sure excited.
Shelby is expected to back his former Chief of Staff Katie Boyd Britt, a woman in her late 30s, who is likely to face off against Insurrectionist favorite Congressman Mo Brooks.
I remember when Shelby switched parties. Made sense as he was following other former Dixiecrats into the GOP like Thurmond, Lott and Phil Gramm.
A few months after Shelby switched Sen Ben Nighthorse Campbell of Colorado also changed parties from Democrat to Republican. That one was more of a head scratcher as he waa pretty middle of the road. Maybe had something to do with local policy.
The Southern Democratic exodus to the Grand ole Party back in the day ….
Yes. Except Campbell was an outlier in that he was in a state that was trending from Republican to Democrat while he was in office from the late 90s to the mid 2000s.
Campbell was feuding with Democrats back home who felt he was not far enough to the left and he was upset that his Senate Democrat colleagues rejected the Balanced Budget Amendment.
That sounds familiar. I figured it was something local.
It was framed mostly about the Balanced Budget Amendment vote in the U.S. Senate.
An interesting character back in the late sixties and seventies was Alabama Senator James B Allen ,easily the most conservative Democrat in the Senate(even to the Right of many Republicans of the day).
Allen was a master of parliamentary maneuvering and often used that knowledge to thwart liberal initiatives.Allen was an ally of George Wallace and supported his Democratic presidential campaigns in 1972 and 1976.
Not a publicity seeker, Allen was once asked why he didn’t switch parties as he voted more often with conservative Republicans than with his own party?Allen coolly replied”Because I’m a Democrat.”
He passed away unexpectedly in 1978 and was given a lifetime Achievement award by CPAC, probably the one of the few ,if only Democrats ,ever to be honored by that group.
Shelby’s seat is safe – unless Roy Moore or a QAnon supporter gets the nomination. Could that happen in today’s GOP?
Mo Brooks will likely run. He’s pretty crazy. Considering how Republican Alabama is I would have to root for someone to knock him off in a GOP primary.
Alabama, the birthplace of the Confederacy, the state that sent Tommy Tuberville to the U.S. Senate, and almost did the same for Judge Roy Moore.
I think even if the Republican Party split in two in Alabama…either candidate would get more than a Democrat…lol…
Maybe bdog….
Maybe….
Mike Murphy of the Lincoln Project and one of John McCain’s writers and campaign managers, is speaking virtually to Brown University’s Watson Institute at 7 p.m. (EST) tonight.
https://watson.brown.edu/taubman/events/mikemurphy
What Does 2020 Tell Us About the GOP in Future Elections?
Monday, February 8, 2021
7 p.m. – 8:30 p.m.
Register here to attend the webinar.
Among the most interesting and effective organizations during the presidential campaign and since has been a group of former Republicans calling themselves the Lincoln Project. The Lincoln Project was responsible for some of the most provocative and devastating campaign ads against President Donald Trump. During the 2020 election, the Lincoln Project reportedly spent $67 million in opposition to Trump and “Trumpism.” Among its most prominent and important participants is Mike Murphy.
Mike Murphy for decades has been one of the Republican Party’s most successful political media consultants. Murphy has been called a “media master” by Fortune magazine, the GOP’s “hottest media consultant” by Newsweek, and the leader of a “new breed” of campaign consultants by Congressional Quarterly.
Murphy is a partner in the Revolution Agency, a strategic communications firm in Washington, D.C.
He is a respected pundit and political analyst. He writes the widely read “Murphy’s Law” column for Time magazine and appears frequently on the Meet the Press Roundtable. Murphy handled media and strategy for more than 26 successful gubernatorial and senatorial campaigns for Jeb Bush, Mitt Romney, Arnold Schwarzenegger, John Engler, Lamar Alexander, Slade Gorton, Spence Abraham, Paul Coverdell, Dirk Kempthorne, Jeff Sessions and many others. He served as a senior strategist for John McCain’s presidential race in 2000. He also serves as the co-director of the Center for the Political Future at the University of Southern California. Murphy is co-host with Obama strategist David Axelrod of the most popular and influential political podcasts, “Hacks on Tap.”
Murphy will join Taubman Interim Director, Professor Richard Arenberg to explore the 2020 campaign, the future of the Republican party, his perspectives on the new administration and the politics for the coming 2024 midterm elections among other issues.
Co-sponsored with USC Center for the Political Future
Speaking of new party’s.
Former Rep Charlie Dent ,aRepublican moderate conservative,says that Republicans like him are talking about either forming a new party of a “faction” in the Republican Party.
Keep the War going….
Maybe they can divide things up so much the Democrats can keep the whole Biden Eight Years and beyond?
Could Trump end up being the ‘Best’ thing for Dem’s?
Would continue my feeling about Trump turning things to shit…
Actually I doubt Dents comment will come to much.
Certainly not a new party.
As to a “faction?”There has long been a group of moderate Republicans known as the Ripon Society ,as well as several other Center -Right groupings.
I remember one called the Republican Mainstream Coalition or something like that back in the Nineties.
Or maybe he’s talking about a purely Congressional group like the Right Wing House Freedom Caucus?
The Republican Main Street Coalition, among whose leaders was former N.J. Gov. and EPA director Christie Todd Whitman.
doesn’t a war imply that people on both sides are fighting? It seems to me that only one side is fighting. I haven’t heard of any attemp to censure Trump supporters or even politicians who supported the rally to overthrow the government. I have not heard of any attempt to make sure that Trump supporters get primaried.
People who dared speak against Trump’s rally to overthrow the government are being censured, publicly threatened and asked to apologize.
Republican Trump opponents are to Trump supporters as Tutsis are to Hutus. There was no war between the Tutsis and Hutus. The Tutsis were slaughtered, but there was no war. And there is no war between the Trump opponents and the Trump supporters.
U HAVE heard from the likes of McConnell, Cheney, Romney, Collins even Graham about rhe defendant’s actions in the House case…
Even McCarthy….
Graham remains a steadfast Trumpite.
McCarthy was down in Florida schmoozing with Trump.
McConnell voted against letting the impeachment trial proceed.
This is your evidence for a “ civil war?”
As best I can tell,based on your amusing declaration that a civil war is also raging in the Democratic Party,when members of the same party disagree ? That constitutes a “ civil war.”
Hyperbole much.
In the American Civil War, was the Union trying to destroy the South or preserve the Union? It seems pretty easy to understand. I am not sure the analogy works unless you are of the mindset that the anti-Trump Republicans within the Party are the bad guys.
The fact of the matter is there will never be a viable alternative to Democrats unless there is a coalition that involves those who supported Trump during these few years, to varying degrees. The Trumpists are the ones who want to purge and destroy.
Common-sense Republicans know that the long-term solution is to hope for some degree of unification. After all, 74 million people are a lot of voters. It will be far more productive and cost-effective in the long-run to either de-cultify or appeal to the better angels of peoples’ natures, just as Lincoln believed during the actual Civil War.
There will certainly be primary challenges to those are considered the most odious of the Trump Era and who reflect badly upon the party, such as MTG, etc.
The primary “battles” will mostly be in open seat nomination races though such as the theoretical primary in Alabama for the Senate seat between a Mo Brooks and an establishment Republican type who works for a business association like Katie Boyd Britt.
‘Common-Sense’?
THAT is frowned upon by the MAJORITY of Republican voters right now…
Yes – the Trumpists are the ones that want to purge and destroy. They are the Hutus. That was part of my analogy.
Your analogy of the North and South is confusing to me. Are the northerners the Democrats or the Republicans?
When you say you want to appeal to the Trumpists’ better angels, what specifically are they? Indifference to global warming? More guns on the streets? Tax cuts that further target the wealthy? Hatred and imprisonment of foreign babies?
You seem to genuinely think that the Trumpists became who they were by one man. it was Trump that most effectively articulated what the GOP really wanted, but if Trump lost the nomination in 2016, I’m not sure that Ted Cruz would have been all that different.
And I hope you still aren’t under the illusion that the John Kasich wing of the party is about to make a comeback? Kasich was weak in 2016. He did carry Ohio, (and I think only Ohio). He would fail by a bigger margin in 2024, as will any Republican that votes against Trump.
I’ve been jokingly referring to it as a “guerilla war.”
The Trumpists are in firm control of the party at all levels and,most importantly ,at the grassroots level,The so called “base” is Trumpist.
The anti Trumpists mostly content themselves with verbal barbs here and there and are much more numerous among media type Republicans.Their effect ,so far in the party itself ,has been negligible.Indeed they receive far more attention among the anti Trump media than among Republicans.
A full scale civil war will require more than just an occasional speech.It will require electoral challenges as CG mentioned and of course actual victories.
When you see that ,along with polls showing numbers close to 50% of Republicans rejecting Trump as face of the party?Then you will have a real civil war rather than the “sniping” you are seeing presently.
Trumpists are clearly in control of the GOP. But 5 of us Democrats on this blog should feel guilty about it because our supposed wishes are what made that come true. Not the actual millions of Republicans who are not rejecting Trump and his goofy conspiracy theories.
They maybe to a certain extent….
But there ARE votes against Trump in Congress….
Georgia and EVERY other state counted the voters votes correctly….
The Minority leader of the Senate has little to no use for the guy….
And YES….
Even some conservatives ARE whispering under their breaths loud enough for some media types to hear…
I have NOT answer for the crazies like Rep. Greene….
Nor do I have to…
I applaud every Republican who stands up to Trumpists in their party.
But I won’t pretend that they are currently anything but a distinct minority of the GOP.
I agree.
There are no “maybes” here.Even Anti Trump Republicans concede that Trumpists still are the vast majority in the party.
Indeed, that is what they are attempting to rectify.
According to new CBS News Poll Shes 73% of Republicans beludve it’s important that the party stay loyal to Trump.
This is in line with other polls that generally show close to 3/4 of Republicans remain committed Trumpists.
I’m still looking for that “maybe” and ,oh yes,” a certain extent.”
But hey a lot of them don’t really “like” him.
No looking….
U are down to the 70’s Jack….
He’s been out of office less than a month…
So just to make it plain…
You believe that one with over 70% support “maybe” means that he is the dominant force in the party.
Is that correct?
Thew simple fact IS that Trump’s support IS and WILL continue to drop….
I have said this countless times and it IS happening….
This IS a fact….
Dominent?
NO….
As point out in one of todays posts….
His ‘movement’ is seeking to turn it’s focus away from him back to anti-Democrat’s with a dose of Trump’s anti-media aND GOVERNMENT…
GOP Lawmaker Avoids Censure Over Impeachment Vote
Rep. Peter Meijer (R-MI) avoided censure by Republican leaders in his west Michigan district after they deadlocked 11-11 Monday night, causing the censure resolution to fail, the Detroit News reports.
The constant in things is change….
That ALSO applies to the Grand ole party Jack….
These GOP lawmakers are facing backlash from state parties for not backing Trump
State Republican parties are taking action against GOP lawmakers who have reprimanded former President Donald Trump.
Some of the senators and representatives who voted in favor of Trump’s impeachment or conviction have been or are facing censure from their state party, underscoring the hold Trump continues to have over the Republican base.
A number of the 17 federal lawmakers to vote against Trump are also facing consequences at a more local level, with county-level party organizations reprimanding Michigan Reps. Fred Upton and Peter Meijer, as well as Pennsylvania Sen. Pat Toomey.
Here are the GOP lawmakers facing action by their state parties….
Most Republicans Want Trump to Play Big Role In Party
Two days after the U.S. Senate voted to acquit former President Donald Trump in his second impeachment trial, a new Quinnipiac poll finds 75% of Republicans say that they would like to see Trump play a prominent role in the Republican Party.
Overall, 60% of Americans say that they do not want Trump to play a prominent role in the party….
Politicalwire
(Consorting with a known criminal?)
A proposal to shift Wyoming’s elections to include primary runoffs for candidates who fail to garner 50 percent of the vote narrowly failed in the state Senate on Wednesday.
The measure, which was shot down in a 15-14 vote, was endorsed by Donald Trump Jr. in an effort to undermine House Republican Conference Chair Liz Cheney’s (R-Wyo.) chances of retaining her seat after she voted to impeach his father, former President Trump, for inciting an insurrection at the Capitol on Jan. 6….
More…
Yep 70% means nothing.
Stupid!
That is ur comment….
NOT mine….
Scott, And the irony is that most of us (maybe all of us) want the Trump wing to be defeated. CG believes we are secretly rooting for the anti-democratic (small D intended) wing of the GOP to win.
It is kind of like arguing. “Let’s hope that Mussolini wins the nomination because he would be easier to defeat”.
I admit I want Democrats to be in tbe majority. But I know that in certain districts and states Republicans are almost guaranteed victory. In those cases I would rather not have the GOP send a Marjorie Taylor Greene to Congress. But if that’s who the party nominates then yes I will point out how dangerously insane this person is.
On a related note St. Louis has shifted to “approval voting” for city offices in which all candidates compete in the March 2 initial vote. You can “approve” of as many candidates as you would like and the top 2 vote getters advance to the April election. The elections are now non partisan and the GOP sacrificial lamb nominee from 2017 is one of the 4 candidates on the March ballot. I may cast a vote for him–which would shock CG.
I want the Democrats to be in the majority too, but I never want to see a Trumpist or some other nut nominated because they just might win. And besides, even if they lose, how does it benefit society to hear their hateful and provocative rhetoric on the campaign trail?
I don’t have time to engage today, but Scott and the others (except Zreebs who did not answer the question directly) said they approved of a strategy in which Democrats would spend money and use resources to defeat anti-Trump Republicans in primaries by appealing to Trumpists to vote against them.
So that is now being contradicted. You can’t “applaud” people but actively work to defeat them with Trumpists.
I am not sureI understand the question. Perhaps you can give a specific example?
I don’t typicallyconsider most anti-Trump Republicans my ally if that is the question. Just because a Democrat voted for something you might consider pro-Israel doesn’t mean you now support that Democrat.
You don’t understand Zreebs, because the statement makes no sense.
I recall our friend being thrilled when it appeared that the Democrats might have been shut out of the general election in our jungle primary process here in California because the Republican candidates would finish one and two in the electoral count. That didn’t happen, but a partisan Republican would have hoped for that outcome when control of the House is in question. Right?
As a Democrat I too would prefer that the Republicans nominate a bunch of Roy Moore’s for future contests. Right?
We are now seeing the benefits of having the Democrats in control of Congress. If my candidate can run against an unacceptable Republican, great.
But, since 75% of the Republicans support Trump, I don’t really understand Corey’s logic. Of course I don’t want more MT Greens in Congress. But, given gerrymandering and the basic intelligence of your typical Republican that’s not going to be possible. Lots more to come.
I think the complaint here is simple. How dare you want the Republican Party controlled by a bunch of Trump fans. That one isn’t on us, it’s on folks like Corey who let it happen.
I don’t recall ever saying that I “approve” of playing in the GOP primaries. I didn’t vote in the last Senate primary here in Missouri but if I could have chosen a nominee it most certainly wouldn’t have been Josh Hawley.
Now whoever emerged from a Republican primary I would have voted against. That shouldn’t be a surprise.
Former Gov. Eric Greitens is considering a challenge to Sen. Roy Blunt. Blunt is far from “anti-Trump” but compared to a seditionist prick like Josh Hawley he would be preferable to Greitens–who seems to base any potential challenge to the GOP incumbent on Blunt being insufficiently pro-Trump.
So *if* Greitens were to defeat Blunt in a primary you bet your ass I would revel in what it says about the Republican Party these days.
If Blunt were to prevail I would still vote for the Democratic nominee (who is TBD but yesterday former State Sen. Scott Sifton announced he would run).
So I’m not sure where this leaves us. I’m still a Democrat who hopes the sanest Republican possible wins a primary in a race that favors the GOP. But I don’t play in the GOP primaries, and if they shit the bed I’m certainly going to mock them for it. And not feel a damn bit bad
When I lived in Charlotte I was in a very GOP district so I joined the GOP because whoever won the GOP primary would typically be elected in my district, and this would give me a say in who was elected.
So in the 1996 Presidential race I voted for Bob Dole over the more Trump-like Pat Buchanan. perhaps that answers CG’s question?
Is there a part of me that roots for the GOP to nominate a less-electable candidate? Of course – especially when I am indifferent between the two GOP candidates. Was it appropriate how Claire McCaskill attacked Todd Akin so that he got the nomination? Yes. Should the Dems specifically target the loudest Trumpists? Only if it makes sense politically. Should the Dems criticize a Republican for opposing Trump? No – but of course the Dems should try to win the race. Not sure if this answers CG’s question..
I don’t really have the time or energy to get into all of this, but there was a specific article last week or two weeks ago, with a specific strategy of Democrats intervening in primaries to try to take out whatever anti-Trump Republicans exist and he said he was for it. Now, he seems to be saying something different. It can’t be both. I guess I just do not understand him. I pointed out in the discussion at the time, that you were the only D voter here who seemed to disagree, so I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt.
As for the history with the Claire McCaskill example, she did NOT attack Akin in the primaries. She ran ads, with her funds, designed to appeal to conservatives, in an attempt to get him to win. She praised him in her ads. Had he not imploded in 2012, he might have beaten her that November still.
I’m not even talking about general elections with this. I understand the theory of wanting the person to whom you feel you have the most in common to win, although that can have unintended consequences, and the concept of two healthy political parties as institutions should perhaps be worthy of consideration, but specifically about how Democrats will exert money and resources into Republican primaries to defeat anti-Trump Republicans because they are “easier” targets and getting rid of them by whatever means necessary might yield more favorable results for Democrats.
So, that is where the confusion is. One cannot applaud that strategy while also saying you applaud their convictions. One who does that is trying to applaud them into extinction.
Quite simply I do not recall expressly stating that I favored Democrars targeting anti-Trump Republicans in GOP primaries.
As I noted here in Missouri if Eeic Greitens challenges Roy Blunt this will not be a case of anti vs pro Trump Republican. It will be two pro Trump Republicans, one more stridently so and less willing to recognize President Biden (Greitens).
My recollection of the McCaskill race was that she criticized Akin I believe on abortion knowing full well that conservatives would rally around Akin. And that is what happened. That race was years ago, so perhaps my recollection is faulty.
Well Yeah, it makes sense to spend limited resources on easier targets. I don’t agree that “whatever means necessary” is appropriate, but surely you choose your words carefully to maximize effectiveness. That seems rational to me.
You have to know that deep down I believe that the GOP will do what it needs to do to win. And that was even true with Mitt Romney. Romney gushed over The Trump endorsement, and then told his supporters that no one needs to ask for his birth certificate. Was that out of line? Perhaps. Perhaps not, but don’t expect Democrats to play by a more restrictive set of rules. Doing so just encourages Republicans to behave badly.
That’s exactly what happened Zreebs. And Akin made his “legitimate rape” comment weeks after he won the GOP primary. I temenber seeing it live on a local news program thinking that was really weird and I wonder if anyone caught that. In the next day or two they did.
So McCaskill’s big sin was baiting Republican primary voters into supporting the most pro fetus anti woman’s choice candidate there was. Akin was always a weirdo (I recall a commercial he had in the 2012 Senate primary where he touted his support of “traditional marriage” by showing a little girl in what looked like a wedding dress. Weird!)
So McCaskill is at fault here and not the Republican primary voters who actually nominated Akin. OK, whatever
It seems that Akin really isn’t much different than Josh Hawley in many ways now is it? Actually Akin never defend the Timothy McVeigh.
We shouldn’t forget that the most likely next Republican Presidential nominee is sitting on the jury that is about to pass judgment on Donald Trump.
Their vote might help them in the primary, but not the general.
What this is about is fear, the fear that the Trump Republicans will win primaries in districts that will then trend to the Democrat because of who the Republicans nominated.
Really?
This too will be blamed on the Democrats when the Republicans, as can be seen from what happened today in the Impeachment Trial, will go down the Trump road even when the mother fucker is guilty of murder. They have already thrown their lot in with Trump, as Scott points out, there isn’t much difference between any of them.
Republicans will not allow Trump to be convicted for the crime of sedition, why would they not nominate a Trump acolyte for office – any office. It appears the bigger crime is the fact that Democrats might interfere with the Republican nominating process by simply pointing out the bigger moron of those running for the nomination. As Harry Truman said regarding the Republicans when someone in the crowd yelled give ’em hell Harry, “I am going to tell the truth and they will think that they’re in hell.” Trump hell.
Well, it’s going to be hell for those Republicans as they simply try to out Trump each other to get their party’s nomination. Fun to watch too.