The fight for control of Republican party

[stevil]

Here is a clip from the Rachael Maddow show which I find interesting

Rachael Maddow always seems to have a look of glee about her when presenting either awkwardness or political or legal shenanigans. At least it is better than faking shock.

Anyway. In this piece it starts off where Trump sends a cease and desist letter to the Republican party to stop them using his name for fundraising, The Republican party initially make a stance BUT end up instead funnelling money into Trump's pockets AND making a public statement praising Trump, whilst not getting what they want "to use Trump's name towards fundraising for them"

In my opinion, Trump had major control over the party while he was president (which is to be expected), but it seemed to me that he had so much control that the party is almost unrecognisable from its pre-Trump days.
But now that he is no longer president, he still seems to have significant power over the Republican party. He seems to be able to control a significant proportion of donations and votes because a large number of supporters seem to be his supporters and not so much Republican supporters (They want both - they what Trump to be leader of the Republican party but when push comes to shove, they support Trump over the party).

Is this correct?
Is the Republican party in a bind here?
They can't go against Trump because Trump will enable his supporters against those that go against him.
But in my view the Republican party can't win with Trump, because I doubt they will be able to get enough votes for a Trump led party to win an election.

So how can the Republican party position themselves strongly for the future?

 

[Goonie]

Here is a clip from the Rachael Maddow show which I find interesting

Rachael Maddow always seems to have a look of glee about her when presenting either awkwardness or political or legal shenanigans. At least it is better than faking shock.

Anyway. In this piece it starts off where Trump sends a cease and desist letter to the Republican party to stop them using his name for fundraising, The Republican party initially make a stance BUT end up instead funnelling money into Trump's pockets AND making a public statement praising Trump, whilst not getting what they want "to use Trump's name towards fundraising for them"

In my opinion, Trump had major control over the party while he was president (which is to be expected), but it seemed to me that he had so much control that the party is almost unrecognisable from its pre-Trump days.
But now that he is no longer president, he still seems to have significant power over the Republican party. He seems to be able to control a significant proportion of donations and votes because a large number of supporters seem to be his supporters and not so much Republican supporters (They want both - they what Trump to be leader of the Republican party but when push comes to shove, they support Trump over the party).

Is this correct?
Is the Republican party in a bind here?
They can't go against Trump because Trump will enable his supporters against those that go against him.
But in my view the Republican party can't win with Trump, because I doubt they will be able to get enough votes for a Trump led party to win an election.

So how can the Republican party position themselves strongly for the future?

And yet he has won more votes than any incumbent president. He lost, he lost badly but still brought out the republican vote. This gives him a lot of power.

 

[stevil]

And yet he has won more votes than any incumbent president. He lost, he lost badly but still brought out the republican vote. This gives him a lot of power.

Sure, yes.
But it is hard to see him win an election. Trump might stir up right wingers to vote, but he also stirs up left wingers to vote also. He is very polarizing.

He also has done things that many right wingers will never ever vote for him ever again.
I don't see D Trump as being a winning strategy for the R party.
But it seems the R party can't seperate themselves from him as those not loyal to D Trump won't get votes.
I think it is a tricky situation for them.
I also think the party itself is struggling to have an identity other than the D Trump identity, and each individual is struggling to stand up for their own principles, as it seems they need to roll over and completely submit to Trump otherwise Trump will endorse someone else in the next election.

 

[Zoii]

Its not just that - As an outside observer, Recent History has shown that when the Republicans are in power, major catastrophic failures occur. With Bush jnr it was a collapsed economy courtesy of the GFC, and very expensive wars in the ME, and failure to address the crisis following Hurricane Katrina.

With Trump it was mishandling of the only crisis he had to face - ie Covid 19, that resulted in closed businesses and wholesale death n illness, well beyond international benchmarks - in fact the USA became one of the worst performers under his leadership. Top that off with a damaging polarisation, riots and insurrection, and you have to start thinking about the Republican brand - whats it stand for exactly, and how does that brand work for the entire nation, not just evangelicals.

Its not a great track record n people remember recent history more than they do ancient history.

 

[Tiberius Lee]

Its not just that - As an outside observer, Recent History has shown that when the Republicans are in power, major catastrophic failures occur. With Bush jnr it was a collapsed economy courtesy of the GFC, and very expensive wars in the ME, and failure to address the crisis following Hurricane Katrina.

With Trump it was mishandling of the only crisis he had to face - ie Covid 19, that resulted in closed businesses and wholesale death n illness, well beyond international benchmarks - in fact the USA became one of the worst performers under his leadership. Top that off with a damaging polarisation, riots and insurrection, and you have to start thinking about the Republican brand - whats it stand for exactly, and how does that brand work for the entire nation, not just evangelicals.

Its not a great track record n people remember recent history more than they do ancient history.

Current republican party stand for only one thing “Make America great again” . But you have to understand what that mean... that means go back to 1950s - when Blue color white Americans with just high school education worked in factories and in 1950s economic standard they got paid well so they could buy home , new car and be part of the society , while black had to sit back of the bus or the restaurant had sign “White Only”, even in churches , Bible college .. “black folks” had to sit separately then white folks .. those were the good old days. That is what it means ‘ Make America great AGAIN”

 

[Pommer]

I do not know if there are members of the GOP who might be hoping for an indictment (or two) against the former President to alleviate them of the trouble of choosing between principles and Trump.

I think that there are some.
I also think that the Democrats think this about some in the GOP, so they’ll take their good-ol’ sweet time and then we can all see what other Conservative “principles” Republicans are ready to relinquish as they continue to kowtow to President Trump.

 

[com7fy8]

My impression >

Donald was in office for four years. So far, I think I am perceiving correctly

But now I'm getting into what ones will not agree on > >

During his four years he put in enough Supreme Court justices to load the Supreme Court for the Republicans . . . and for Donald. But when Donald brought his stolen election agenda to his own justices, they did not back him up. Plus, his administration got a number of federal judges appointed, and ones of these also did not back him up on his stolen election thingy. And Vice President Pence did not back him up.

And even before the stolen election thing, Donald already had alienated a number of his supporters so they did not vote for him. To me, it was easy to see that that was happening; so it made sense how he got fewer votes than Joe Biden; that did not surprise me, at all. So, Donald, possibly I can say, departed from some number of his own people who are mainstream Republicans. And he will likely not have credibility to get their votes . . . if indeed they did not vote for him for a second term: now they are even more alienated.

But Donald seems to own a number of voters who would never vote Democrat. So, it is possible this will keep the Republican voting bloc chopped, one way or another so the Republican Party will not be able to win for some time > if he becomes the Republican candidate, a number of Republicans will not vote for him, as already has happened . . . on principle. And if he is refused, he will keep voters who will not honor the Republican Party which has refused Donald.

So, unless God has a surprise coming, the Republican Party by running Donald has donated a number of future elections to the Democrats. But the Democrats in the past have succeeded at donating the presidency to Republican candidates; so it is possible they will find a way

What would work better is to select qualified candidates. But there would need to be enough qualified voters to get them elected.

 

[stevil]

But Donald seems to own a number of voters who would never vote Democrat. So, it is possible this will keep the Republican voting bloc chopped, one way or another so the Republican Party will not be able to win for some time > if he becomes the Republican candidate, a number of Republicans will not vote for him, as already has happened . . . on principle. And if he is refused, he will keep voters who will not honor the Republican Party which has refused Donald.

So, unless God has a surprise coming, the Republican Party by running Donald has donated a number of future elections to the Democrats. But the Democrats in the past have succeeded at donating the presidency to Republican candidates; so it is possible they will find a way

That's the tricky bit for the Republican party.

Damned (as a party) if they go with Trump (IMHO), Damned (as individuals hoping for a career in the party) if they don't go with Trump.
Trump supporters will vote for whoever Trump endorses and that gives Trump all the power over the Republican party, and Trump is now showing that he has significant power over whether political donations are made to the party or to his own PAC.

As a party the Republican party seem a bit stuck.

 

[Pommer]

So, unless God has a surprise coming, the Republican Party by running Donald has donated a number of future elections to the Democrats. But the Democrats in the past have succeeded at donating the presidency to Republican candidates; so it is possible they will find a way

A few minor alterations to Teddy Roosevelt and Mt Rushmore will have a new split-two term President!

 

[Pommer]

That's the tricky bit for the Republican party.

Damned (as a party) if they go with Trump (IMHO), Damned (as individuals hoping for a career in the party) if they don't go with Trump.
Trump supporters will vote for whoever Trump endorses and that gives Trump all the power over the Republican party, and Trump is now showing that he has significant power over whether political donations are made to the party or to his own PAC.

As a party the Republican party seem a bit stuck.

The longer the albatross President is shackled to the GOP the better the Democrats will like it.

 

[stevil]

The longer the albatross President is shackled to the GOP the better the Democrats will like it.

Yes, I suppose so.

Perhaps a way out for them would to be to have a candidate that both D Trump and the Republican party can get behind.
I don't know if Donald's children could fit the bill.
Donald would probably support one of them
Would Jr be as troublesome for election chances (given the pre-riot speech he made)
Would Ivanka have a chance? Could far right Republican supporters vote for a woman? Or would she be too boring given that she isn't likely to go on the attack like Donald does, wouldn't likely use nicknames and the like.

 

[mark46]

Yes, I suppose so.

Perhaps a way out for them would to be to have a candidate that both D Trump and the Republican party can get behind.
I don't know if Donald's children could fit the bill.
Donald would probably support one of them
Would Jr be as troublesome for election chances (given the pre-riot speech he made)
Would Ivanka have a chance? Could far right Republican supporters vote for a woman? Or would she be too boring given that she isn't likely to go on the attack like Donald does, wouldn't likely use nicknames and the like.

I can't believe that I'm saying this.

Trump has a much better chance of winning in 2024 than any of his children.

 

[Elliewaves]

Just a guess that is probably wrong but I think they are clinging to him because he is holding purse-strings. The GOP lost some donors after Jan. 6, he's probably acting like a bank or something for them to make that up. So they kiss his ring and stroke his ego and he fleeces the flock and shares some with them.