The State of the Republican Primary

David Thornton

David Thornton is a freelance writer and professional pilot who has also lived in Georgia, Florida, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas. He is a graduate of the University of Georgia and Emmanuel College. He is Christian conservative/libertarian who was fortunate enough to have seen Ronald Reagan in person during his formative years. A former contributor to The Resurgent, David now writes for the Racket News with fellow Resurgent alum, Steve Berman, and his personal blog, CaptainKudzu. He currently lives with his wife and daughter near Columbus, Georgia. His son is serving in the US Air Force. You can find him on Twitter @CaptainKudzu and Facebook.

Related Post Roulette

10 Responses

  1. North says:

    I didn’t expect much from the debate but a collection of movement in polls that doesn’t even exceed the margin of error managed to go under my already low bar of expectation.

    That Douthat piece rankled me a bit because he writes it as if he thinks that anyone on the Democratic side of the partisan gulf has any power at all to influence when the fishing trial date is set. IANAL but my understanding is none of them do. So a mistake by whom?

    The interesting thing about this is if Trump is the nominee and he loses even 10% of the right wing vote then he’s cooked. Not only cooked but in near landslide loss territory unless the lost votes end up concentrated in urban areas.Report

  2. Chip Daniels says:

    Looking at the photo, its remarkable how unremakable it is.

    Even with the caveat that political rallies are always filled with hyperbolic and breathles rhetoric to fire up the base, it is clear that the idea that the Republican party is an insurrectionist revolutionary faction is no longer a harsh accusation but a self-professed description.

    Not every Republican openly professes that they are a revolutionary dedicated to overthrowing an illegitimate and tyrannical regime, but those who do are accepted and embraced as fellow travelers on a journey to a common destination.

    And its true that if ever any of these words ever met with the whiff of gunpowder almost all of their adherents would instanly melt away like cotton candy in th rain, as evidenced by the Jan 6 defendents sobbing in court and insisting they were simple morons led astray.

    But the rest of us citizens need to remember that it was always this way, in both revolutions which fail and ones which succeed.

    The vast majority of American colonists, Southern Confederates, Russian peasants and Vietnamese had no real desire to go off and kill or get killed. But memoirs tell us that at some point thre was a critical mass where going along with the speaker shouting incendiary words just seemed easier than not.

    And we also know from history that it takes only a small number of insurrectionists to bring an established order to its knees and make it ungovernable.Report

  3. Marchmaine says:

    I guess the thing that would be helpful for me, a non-Republican non-Primary voter, would be less horse-race reporting and more taxonomy reporting.

    It would require someone who really understands Republican politics and Republican Policy preferences in addition to parsing the Primary rhetoric into some sort of hypothesis on what, say, Niki Haley is positioning… and, to what extent and which parts of that seem to resonate, and which seem to fall flat — and to which segments of the electorate.

    Douthat (contra North) is good at this in general, but I don’t think he has the stomach for trying to parse the daily gibberish of Republican primary utterances. But ‘someone’ should. Ideally someone paid, and not just a friendly contributor to a group blog. 🙂

    So, I’m accusing myself of the bad taste of writing a comment on the column I wish someone had written, rather than what is written. No offence.

    Ultimately, horserace analysis without taxonomy analysis is kinda beneficial to politicians like Trump who are ‘momentum’ candidates and thrive on attention, but wither on analysis. Now, I *also* maybe even *primarily* blame the candidates themselves who seem averse to staking out a theme/direction/reason for their candidacy merely hoping to inherit the ‘brand’ if/when Trump implodes. It’s a (slightly) different type of the Political Malpractice we saw in 2016, but malpractice it remains.Report

    • Pinky in reply to Marchmaine says:

      Got an hour? This is exactly what you’re describing:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uH61uLlahxMReport

      • Marchmaine in reply to Pinky says:

        Thanks, I worked through it; it seems a decent breakdown of the debate from a Republican perspective, but ‘Lane Theory’ is horse race theory with one level of abstraction. And his lanes aren’t really taxonomically useful as far as policy and campaign direction go. ‘Trump’ and ‘Trump Adjacent’, don’t tell us as much as he thinks they do… not when it comes to policy and message.Report

        • InMD in reply to Marchmaine says:

          I think as long as Trump is alive and not incarcerated this is kind of like looking for the taxonomy of various Peronists while Juan Peron is still leading the party. They may exist, and it may become important later, but I’m not sure it can factionalize into distinct groups while the man himself is still calling the shots.Report

          • Marchmaine in reply to InMD says:

            Hey, there’s no need to bring the Pope into this…
            [that’s a Peronist joke for an audience of one]

            But I digress. Sure, it’s like running against an incumbent president; that’s a tough nut to crack in any circumstance; though, this nut already has some cracks, so not impossible.

            But, that’s my point… if you’re running a campaign against an incumbent the ‘swim lanes’ at the lowest level are Incumbent, Incumbent Adjacent, Incumbent by Necessity, and Never Incumbent.

            The answer will be: Incumbent.

            If you’re campaigning into this, you have to break the swim lanes. Remember, there wasn’t a Trump Lane until Trump invented it. Now… I’ve said a thousand times (before and after) that it was political malpractice not to adapt to Trump’s ‘Policy’ positions that created his lane. And part of me suspects that everyone on the stage is owned by their donors who want the party, but not the changed policies. By their standard, Trump 1 was a pretty good payoff — because he delivered on the Old Party goals and didn’t do anything that earned him his Swim Lane. That’s a crack that’s exploitable. But I don’t think any of these Republican Retreads even see the crack.

            Trump further confounds things because he’s willing to flip-flop on policies or hold incoherent policy positions… or, in 2020 actually abolish the Party Platform entirely. But that’s both the challenge and the Oppty.

            If I’m RDS or Haley or Scott, what’s the collection of ‘popular’ policies I can take from Trump and box him into running on his record of ‘Tax Cuts for Billionaires’ and set yourself up as ‘Trustworthy’ on these Six Things. [Will their donors fund them? Maybe not — but that’s worth the 4th estate sussing out]

            I’ll fully admit that modern politics does *not* favor a [detailed] Policy Oriented approach — too easy to pick-apart the details — which is why I’m not saying they need to go 9-9-9 or M4A … but rather, what’s the *story* on the priorities and deliverables are you getting by going with Haley that you *wouldn’t* get in going with Trump? Other than Not-being-Trump, it’s not coming through.

            If I were a Republican who didn’t want Trump, I’d help them form winnable narratives.Report

            • InMD in reply to Marchmaine says:

              I would be doing the same, though again, as long as Trump Lives (politically) it may not be possible.

              However in the spirit of the discussion, and while I hate to do it on someone else’s OP, I thought this was an interesting and humorous take on each candidate’s capital ‘M’ Message to primary voters:

              https://imightbewrong.substack.com/p/what-each-republican-candidates-message?pos=7&utm_source=%2Fbrowse%2Frecommendations&utm_medium=reader2

              I didn’t watch the debates, and obviously the piece is coming from an outsider to the GOP, but maybe someone who did watch it can confirm or deny the veracity.Report

            • Pinky in reply to Marchmaine says:

              Primaries are like wrestling development meetings, where each candidate chooses his persona. That part of it isn’t fundamentally serious. Usually, most candidates if they became president would make a few different choices (Cabinet, executive orders, et cetera) but would have to follow Congress’s lead on laws and adapt to whatever foreign policy challenges come up.

              Of the five candidates who could win the nomination (Trump, DeSantis, Christie, Scott, and Haley) the main differences would be the following:
              – Trump would do whatever he felt like, based on who offended him earlier that day.
              – DeSantis would be more of a fighter on social issues, and might take the budget seriously.
              – Christie and Scott, I got nothing.
              – Haley is more aggressive on foreign policy, more of a compromiser on social issues.

              Shapiro’s lanes are Trumpers, Traditional GOP, Liberal Wing, and Trump Adjacent. I think they correspond to Trump loyalists, conservatives, moderates/liberals, and undecideds. The middle two represent the traditional Republican divide. The first are the populist nationalist types, and the last could be anyone.Report