The Republican Albatross

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

26 Responses

  1. Jaybird
    Ignored
    says:

    Okay. Let’s posit that there are 3 groups of voters:

    1. People who, if they vote, will vote for your guy no matter what.
    2. People who, if they vote, will vote for the other guy no matter what.
    3. People who, if they vote, can be persuaded to vote for either guy.

    One of the wackiest things about 2016 is how weird it played with the knobs. Trump was able to get a whole bunch of #1s to show up for the first time. #1s who had never shown up before, showed up for Trump. Trump was able to get a whole bunch of #3s who were always assumed to be #2s to demonstrate that that assumption was wrong.

    Now, sure, Clinton won the popular vote and, by some measures, that’s the only thing that matters.

    But there are other measures that some people think are important and Trump somehow managed to get votes that mattered under those other measures. If he ain’t on the ballot, those people don’t show up, that’s for sure, but 2016 turned a lot of stuff on its head.

    And I think that the argument has to be something like “how can we somehow harness his chaotic energy and get those people to vote for us again, even if we’re running Jeb Bush?”

    (Note:This assumes that Hillary Clinton was not an awful, awful candidate who somehow energized the Republican #1s, depressed the Democratic #2s, and flipped a whole bunch of #3s in some exceptionally important geographic areas despite winning the popular vote.)Report

  2. Chip Daniels
    Ignored
    says:

    Every party needs to define its boundaries where the big tent ends and political exile begins. In other words, you can have nuts and kooks, you just have to make sure they are marginalized and kept away from the levers of power.

    The Republicans have instead, elevated the nuts and kooks to the Presidency and Speakership and almost all positions of power and influence. And as David Frum has observed, when faced with electoral losses they react not by trying to move to where the voters are, but by trying to dismiss the electorate and choose another.

    There is no such boundary as “too far” in Republican circles.
    Declare that democracy is incompatible with freedom? Sure, welcome to the party!
    Insist that America is a Christian nation and should be bound by the laws of God? Howdy friend, have a seat at the table!
    Try to overthrow a free and fair election with violence? Lets make this person President!

    The problem is not with the party leaders, but with the rank and file. The Mitt Romneys and David Thorntons are the marginalized kooks now, standing outside the tent looking in.Report

  3. DensityDuck
    Ignored
    says:

    one amusing thing has been seeing people take the abortion-rights laws in stride. “conservatives are gonna get abortion banned everywhere in the country? oh, they didn’t? well too bad, I’m angry about it anyway!”Report

    • North in reply to DensityDuck
      Ignored
      says:

      Well pro-lifers are generally pretty up front about their being dead set on trying again, if the lose, and pushing further, if they win. So that attitude from pro-choicers is entirely rational.Report

      • DensityDuck in reply to North
        Ignored
        says:

        “They repealed Roe! They’re gonna ban abortion!”
        (abortion is the exact opposite of banned)
        “Ah, well. Nevertheless…”Report

      • Chip Daniels in reply to North
        Ignored
        says:

        The anti-abortion people have cemented their brand and message solidly in the minds of Americans.

        50 years of screaming about dead babies and Holocaust and how life begins at the moment of conception isn’t going to wash away with someone stammering “Uh, no, we don’t want to ban abortions, no sirree, nuh-uh not at all!”

        Maybe if they outfitted the Speaker of the House with a muzzle and ball gag it would help.Report

    • Chip Daniels in reply to DensityDuck
      Ignored
      says:

      An example of Republicans “taking abortion-rights laws in stride”:

      “Issue 1 doesn’t repeal a single Ohio law, in fact, it doesn’t even mention one,” said Representative Bill Dean (R-Xenia). “The amendment’s language is dangerously vague and unconstrained, and can be weaponized to attack parental rights or defend rapists, pedophiles, and human traffickers.”

      Melanie Miller (R-Ashland) said, “We will continue to be a voice for every child in their mother’s womb who cannot speak for themselves.”

      Representative Beth Lear (R-Galena) stated, “No amendment can overturn the God given rights with which we were born.”

      To prevent mischief by pro-abortion courts with Issue 1, Ohio legislators will consider removing jurisdiction from the judiciary over this ambiguous ballot initiative. The Ohio legislature alone will consider what, if any, modifications to make to existing laws based on public hearings and input from legal experts on both sides. Report

  4. InMD
    Ignored
    says:

    I am of course pro-choice, in the now very unfashionable, safe, legal, and rare sort of way. But if I were a Republican with a bunch of commitments on this issue, my response would be to say something like ‘the matter was returned to the states where it should have always been, if there is a referendum in my state I will vote pro-life, but now that we have gotten the US constitution completely out of the equation we should not re-insert the federal government.’ I’m pretty sure Chris Christie has in practice taken this kind of position, but I assume the fact that he has an even worse chance at the nomination than the previously thought plausible non-Trump candidates says all anyone needs to know about where the Republican base is on the subject.Report

  5. Saul Degraw
    Ignored
    says:

    If someone is a true believer, they probably shouldn’t change their views based on the national mood. Though there are probably ways to modify it or triangulate or what you will. Maybe. Sometimes.

    Former OTer Jamelle Bouie has a column in the Times today about voters turning sour on Republican culture war stuff. This may or may not be true. It probably exists on a spectrum. However, Republicans still have a lot of built in advantages because of the number of states with low or middling populations of people that might be a minority but have leveraged advantages from having two Senators just like California has two Senators.

    Manchin probably saw the writing on the wall and bowed out. He only won 2018 because of a third party spoiler candidate. I think Brown and Tester have good chances of being reelected but there are very few Democratic pickups in 2020. Arizona can probably get a real Democrat again. Defeating Cruz will be tantalizing but probably not happen.
    I suspect Democrats will run a real deal guy like Kunce in MO and he will lose to Hawley, etc.

    A Biden victory means the House flips though and the most likely best case scenario for Democrats in Biden reelected, House flips, 50-50 Senate with Harris as a tie-breaker and hopefully no other Senators getting Sinema-Manchin brain.*

    *Possible, MN’s state government had great progress with tight margins this year because everyone worked togetherReport

    • InMD in reply to Saul Degraw
      Ignored
      says:

      Trump is the mind killer. I think that his presidency combined with covid brought out the weirdest and worst of progressive activism and culture. His absence as president, particularly after being replaced by someone like Biden, has deflated the salience. In a society full of people with attention spans shorter than a goldfish most quickly forget things that seemed important a few days ago much less what the big flashpoints were 3 or 4 years in the last. The Republicans on the other hand have continued to double down on their weirdest and worst, and indeed, that’s really all they have. Which certainly doesn’t mean it’s the end of them. In a two party system it is probably never going to be the end of anyone. But their prospects will be inherently limited if they are perpetually seen as fighting battles the bulk of normie, low info voters have moved on from. It’s sort of like back in the day when Giuliani was mocked for dropping 9/11 into every possible interview and interaction regardless of relevance.Report

      • Chip Daniels in reply to InMD
        Ignored
        says:

        At this moment, their prospects are limited to capturing the Presidency and Senate and narrowly losing the House.

        Their prospects are further limited to retaining about half of the country’s governorships and state legislatures and holding a 6-3 majority in SCOTUS.Report

  6. Douglas Hayden
    Ignored
    says:

    Nikki Haley is legit the GOP’s best hope for 2024. Which, of course, is why she’s been mercilessly buried by a media eco-sphere which is more hooked on Trump than the cast of Requiem For A Dream. Haley vs Biden would be a policy-riddled snoozefest. Trump – Biden II: The Brawl For It All, now there’s a ratings and ad rates spectacular!

    Of course, the coastal media folk haven’t figured out that with Trump’s energy levels collapsing and 2020 having accelerated the mushening of his brain, they’re looking at less Aloha From Hawaii than Elvis In Concert. Junkies were never known for their foresight, though.Report

    • Jesse in reply to Douglas Hayden
      Ignored
      says:

      No, Haley’s being buried because a majority of the Republican primary electorate have no interest in her as the nominee, when Trump is there. Yes, a lot of well-paid guys in think tanks who appear on TV a lot and a few of the remaining embarassed anti-anti-Trumpers are fans of Haley, but the median Republican wants Trump, and think he was the best President of their lifetime.Report

      • pillsy in reply to Jesse
        Ignored
        says:

        Polling has Trump leading the entirety of the non-Trump field by a comfortable margin.

        And some of the non-Trump supporters are, like, DeSantis fans who think Trump’s problem is he doesn’t hire enough Proud Boys, so they’ll come home once reality sets in.

        Or they’re Ramaswamy supporters who think Trump’s problem is he thinks we actually landed on the moon.

        Republican voters want 100 kilograms of brain worms stuffed into a human skin suit, not Nikki Haley.Report

  7. Saul Degraw
    Ignored
    says:

    Ohio Republicans issue a Fox News rant and mull nullifying their own judiciary to beat back on Ohio Issue 1.Report

    • DavidTC in reply to Saul Degraw
      Ignored
      says:

      I think people have not quite internalized that Republican politicians have managed to build a universe where they exist in an endless struggle against the evil abortion lobby, and how badly that is going to fail when it hits the reality that, in actuality, the vast majority of people are not willing to have abortion be illegal.

      As I have mentioned before: Republicans like to pretend the electorate is ‘evenly divided’ on abortion, when in reality it’s even divided between ‘pro-life’ and ‘pro-choice’, but the majority of people who call themselves pro-life do not actually want it _illegal_ either, they just vaguely disapprove of hypothetical abortions happening for no reason and want people to know that.

      This was sorta a deliberate strategic decision on their part, to try to pretend the ‘pro-life position’ had a lot more support than it did. But at this point, Republicans have been misleading everyone so long the ones in office have even managed to be fooled by it. And they literally cannot comprehend why, for example, Ohio would pass a constitutional amendment enshrining it in the constitution.

      People who actually try to understand politics need to realize just how easily labels are manipulated, and how often people claim labels that do not actually match the policy position that those labels do not correspond to…or even know what those positions are! When trying to figure out support for laws, you can’t poll people about _labels_. You have to poll them on _the actual things they want to happen_.

      …and, of course, Republican in Ohio don’t care what happened anyway. Republicans get to make the rules, not the voters. Just like they get to decide who is elected, not the voters, hence gerrymandering. Once a government has decided that ‘it’ is in charge, instead of representative of the people, you get this. Which people also need to understand.Report

      • Pinky in reply to DavidTC
        Ignored
        says:

        The average pro-choicer also falls short of the militant position. And as we’ve seen, the militants are up in arms about any restrictions. We’ve seen hundreds of trigger laws suddenly become enforceable, laws that even the authors probably never gave much practical thought to. And now each state is finding its way to a new normal. Dobbs didn’t begin or end the fight, just leveled the field.Report

        • DavidTC in reply to Pinky
          Ignored
          says:

          The average pro-choicer also falls short of the militant position. And as we’ve seen, the militants are up in arms about any restrictions.

          You can pretend all you want that there is some ‘middle ground’ that the ‘militants on both sides’ will settle on, but we’ve literally had a year of legislation, and the two sides have very clearly staked out their positions:

          One side is attempting to make abortion illegal, with perhaps maybe vague wording for rape that no one believes would actually ever be usable, and maybe something about allowing removing dead fetuses or save the life of the mother or something if they remember. If they think that’s super-super-unpopular, they might try a con game of setting some literally impossibly short time like ‘six weeks’, but people aren’t falling for it.

          The other side is saying ‘fetal viability’. There’s no one over there arguing for ‘no restrictions’, because that has always been made-up nonsense that the forced-birthers invented out of thin air, where people were aborting babies right before they were born. There are no ‘militants’, or at least, none of them are anywhere near the people writing the laws. It’s either fetal viability, or sometimes they just write a number around 22 weeks in the law, roughly the same thing.

          And the second side is, simply, winning that position.

          Democrats are not going to meet in the middle. They have no need to.

          If Republicans would actually be willing to compromise the _slightest_ bit, they could probably pre-emptively enact bans of 16 weeks that Democrats might not be able to get the population angry about, which I guess people could pretend was a compromise instead of just diminishing returns. But the Democrats do not have to do anything…they can keep steamrolling on this issue as long as Republicans do not move.Report

          • Pinky in reply to DavidTC
            Ignored
            says:

            “You can pretend all you want that there is some ‘middle ground’ that the ‘militants on both sides’ will settle on”

            Of course I wouldn’t argue that, and you may also notice that I didn’t. Nice job of picking that argument apart though. You picked it apart like it was made of, well, straw. So much for which of us is pretending.

            Truth is, there are militants who want every abortion legal, and militants who want every abortion illegal. Under Roe, most abortions were legal; under Casey, even more than that. Under Dobbs, states can implement any policy they want. Ohio passed a law that would have restricted most abortions, then passed an amendment that put the state’s law comparable to Roe.Report

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *