What's next for the Republican Party?

[Skybison]

So with his win in Indiana Trump's almost certainly going to be the republican nominee for president.  And with the lowest favorability ratings of any party nominee since basically ever, he's almost certainly going to get curbstomped by Hillary in the general election.

So what happens to the republican party when the dust settles?

One idea is that a humiliating defeat will allow the relative grown ups to regain control, but in the short term that seems unlikely.  The racist thug vote seems more likely to double down on their hatred of the establishment and blame them for Trump's defeat.  Another idea is that the party will split in two, or be left such a divided chaotic mess that it won't be winning any national elections any time soon.  That seems pretty plausible, but I'm skeptical about pronouncements of the deaths of major political parties.  In my own country just five years ago it was almost taken for granted that the liberal party was dead but last year they came back with a majority government.

My biggest worry is that it will inspire future politicians to take a page from Trump's book, and they might make it work for a politician who isn't obviously incompetent.  Barry Goldwater for example was crushed in the general election, but he paved the way for Ronald Reagan to take over and push the Republicans and the whole US far right.  To quote one of my favorite bloggers (Fred Clark or Slacktivist):

Trump’s nomination would transform a good chunk of the currently anti-Trump Republican electorate into something more Trumplike. That happens. I knew a lifelong Republican who fought for Gerald Ford in 1976, fiercely opposing the primary challenge from Ronald Reagan, whom he viewed as a dangerous, radical kook and the embodiment of everything that was wrong with that wing of the party. In 1980, he supported George H.W. Bush in the primary, cheering Bush’s rejection of Reagan’s “voodoo economics.” But by 1984, he was a Reaganite through-and-through. That happens. And, despite the current, belated Republican “establishment” panic over Donald Trump’s success, it’s already begun happening again.

So where does the Grand Old Party go from here?

[ironbite]

If Trump does not get the White House, the GOP implodes as his supporters and the Tea Party eat it for lunch.

Ironbite-and what's left can't get any form of power ever.

[rookie]

FWIW, I thought Trump was the doubling down of ignorant rhetoric. Romney did what he could and got his ass handed to him in 2012. From there we all saw that the party was either going to change or double down. And now we have Trump. Not saying they won't continue down the road they're on, but it'll be interesting to see where they go from here.

[Skybison]

If Trump does not get the White House, the GOP implodes as his supporters and the Tea Party eat it for lunch.

Ironbite-and what's left can't get any form of power ever.

I'm less optimistic.  The argument that the republicans can never retake the white house seems pretty solid, but between gerrymandering, low voter turn out and the huge partisan divide in US politics there still going to be a major force in congress and at a state level.  And there I think the party is going to become even more Trumpified and Cruzified.  The GOP establishment proved itself to be incapable of fighting Trump so in the future they're probably going to have to follow in his footsteps. 

My prediction: The presidential election from now on is the democratic primary, but a fanatical republican party will continue to gridlock congress and wreck havoc at a state level.  But with climate change to deal with we need a functioning US government that lives in reality.  Thus the democrats need to fight to increase voter turnout among the young and left wing and bring a halt to gerrymandering.  That's the only way to limit the damage.

[mellenORL]

To truly achieve that, we need a counter to ALEC. Majorly counter, majorly effectual. I don't see that as being similar in modus operandi to ALEC at all, but rather a very mobilized activist sector that puts eyes and ears and body cameras inside the federal and state legislatures and back room meetings, posting audio/visual evidence of the rat pols' bullshit online instantly, while immediately pursuing legal action and whistleblowing loudly and publicly to whichever governance oversight  or law enforcement entity is appropriate.

The reason we've become an oligarchy is that the public are completely clueless as to what happens. Case in point: somebody here posted a YouTube video showing state reps while they blatantly push the vote buttons installed at the seats of momentarily absent legislators, stealing -- literally thieving -- extra votes to pass or block amendments and bills. For that cute little trick and the tons of other evil shit these fucksters do, everything needs to be outed to the world, broadcast if possible, but MSM being what it is, the internet alone will do nicely. They can't yank incriminating evidence off it fast enough if ever.

[Id82]

I feel like the democrats are becoming the new republican party, moving more to the right and the republican party is becoming some extreme conservative, ultra religious, racists and xenophobic monster. I wonder what it's going to take to swing the pendulum to the left.

[dpareja]

I feel like the democrats are becoming the new republican party, moving more to the right and the republican party is becoming some extreme conservative, ultra religious, racists and xenophobic monster. I wonder what it's going to take to swing the pendulum to the left.

Tons of progressives breaking from the Democratic Party en masse, forming a new party that can successfully elect candidates to federal and state offices, and causing a realignment into the Seventh Party System (or Sixth if you're of the opinion that the Fifth is still around in some form or other).

[Ultimate Paragon]

Maybe the fringe will get fed up with the GOP establishment and form their own party with blackjack and hookers.

[dpareja]

Maybe the fringe will get fed up with the GOP establishment and form their own party with blackjack and hookers.

More likely vice versa. That "fringe" just got the candidate it wanted in the Republican primaries, and previously managed to force out both John Boehner and Eric Cantor. Forming a new party that isn't saddled with the baggage of having run the Southern Strategy seems like something they might do.

This does leave the question of where people who are largely fiscally conservative but socially liberal will end up.

[davedan]

I think many of them may join the democrats.

Edit: I love the onion - http://www.theonion.com/article/republican-establishment-quietly-relieved-party-no-52879

[lord gibbon]

which isn't promising. The last thing we need is for the democrats to become more economically conservative.

[davedan]

Which may lead to a split in the democrats.

Really there should be three parties anyway. The centrist parts of the GOP and the right of the Democrats should form a fiscally conservative socially liberal party. The Tea Party fanatics should form their own right wing party and the progressive part of the democrats should form a progressive party. The presidential and Vice Presidential Nominations from this time round could look something like this : Sanders/Warren; Clinton/Kasich Graham; Trump/Cruz

[The_Queen]

I feel like the democrats are becoming the new republican party, moving more to the right and the republican party is becoming some extreme conservative, ultra religious, racists and xenophobic monster. I wonder what it's going to take to swing the pendulum to the left.

Tons of progressives breaking from the Democratic Party en masse, forming a new party that can successfully elect candidates to federal and state offices, and causing a realignment into the Seventh Party System (or Sixth if you're of the opinion that the Fifth is still around in some form or other).

I don't quite agree with that. I think it's really more that in the two party system, you get a lot of separate ideological groups aligning under two big tents. For the last 40 years almost, progressives and liberals could not even compete on a national scale for the presidency, and only a few regional candidates could compete as openly and unabashed liberals, progressives, or socialists. As such, and as is common in the two party system, the dems had to move to the right to stay competitive for elected positions (in particular the presidency). In this sense, the two party system can be seen as an equilibrium reaction of sorts in which the losing party has to do something to win again, be it fire up the base, move to the left, move to the right, or rebrand itself. While this concession to the right sucked, to not accept it would all but ensure an even worse result (as much as a few certain posters have bashed Bill Clinton for his triangulation and "third-way" politics, the fact that he made the most-favorably rated president of the modern polling era a one-term president is simply remarkable, and resulted in OBRA, increased internet expansion, Kyoto...I could go on).

I don't think Bernie is going to create some new party, as much as he has shown Democrats that the era of Reagan and Mondale is over. Leftist ideologies which were previously un-viable on a national level are now openly and widely supported. If the liberals, progressives, and socialists speak up, vote, and run, then the democratic party will have to make more concessions and dedicate more of its party platform to leftist ideas. Much like Bernie pulled Hillary to the left, the democratic party as a whole would be pulled to the left. Just this last cycle, Bernie is probably the primary reason that Hillary made campaign promises for a higher federal minimum wage, paid family leave, and healthcare as a human right. This result can easily be implemented and replicated on a broader scale in local primaries and presidential primaries going forward, because as history shows us, politicians have a solid record of making a good-faith attempt to legislate their campaign promises.

That said, I think working within the system is the best way to pull America to the left. Another party that appeals to leftists would just divide the vote and give more congressional seats and presidencies to the Republicans: any other party would simply not be a viable party outside of a few regional elections (as it is now). So, we have no real gains alongside the high risk for losses.

And Davedan, that's a good joke. Hillary is in the most liberal third of the democratic party* while Kasich is a radical conservative who for purposes of the election branded himself as an electable moderate. Without overwhelming change to the Constitution (which will probably not happen in our lifetimes) the two party system is here to stay.

*She would be in the most liberal sixth of the Senate during her time there. Her and Bernie voted together 93% of the time, with most of their differences being due to procedural differences, such as motions to end debates. I guess my sentiment is that I don't understand this selective standard of political purity for Hillary and Hillary alone (in both this election and in 2008).

[dpareja]

http://www.cracked.com/blog/how-us-elections-look-through-eyes-foreigners/

The thing that struck me most about that article was a comment by the Finn: he considers himself centre-right, but by American standards, he's a radical leftist.

[SCarpelan]

http://www.cracked.com/blog/how-us-elections-look-through-eyes-foreigners/

The thing that struck me most about that article was a comment by the Finn: he considers himself centre-right, but by American standards, he's a radical leftist.

Despite that our current government is filled with people who idolize Thatcher and one of the government party leaders has said he identifies with the Republican party over there. In other words, we are veering strongly to the economical right at the moment.

Edited to add the quote as context since I started a new page.