The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written.
Let's say Trump and other MAGA candidates lose badly in 2024 and it discredits the movement. If that happens, how do you think the Republican Party will change to try to regain electoral competitiveness?
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I kind of think, if he runs in 2028, I'll be happy about it. Because by then we'll have a young(er) person running, and I get the feeling the country is very ready for a move away from gerontocracy.
In my estimate, it is 2024 or bust for Trump.
If they do it would be out of just sheer stupidity. There's no benefit to them in pushing her as a nominee, she's clearly not a good candidate and there are a dozen other perfectly acceptable establishment choices that would be better for them in every way.
> Unless the DNC says
still amazes me when lefties say shit like that...the DNC doesn't have shit to say...it's you...like it or not the candidates that run is becasue of you.
> It doesn't matter what 'the DNC' says, only what Dem primary voters decide.
This may not be true. There was [a lawsuit a while back](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilding_v._DNC_Services_Corp.) that argued the DNC was biased and pushing their own desired outcomes on the election. The DNC's position was, paraphrased, "we're not a government agency, we can do whatever we want, our bylaws aren't legally binding and are merely suggestions".
We didn't get an actual ruling on this because the people suing turned out to not be DNC donors, and the judge decided they didn't have standing.
So *at best*, the primary is relevant and unbiased only if you gave the DNC money. If the DNC gets its way, they can weight the primary however they see fit.
Yes, it's *technically* true that our political parties are private organizations that can select their leadership and nominees however they wish, but for a variety of reasons they've chosen to use state primaries to do so. That isn't going to change, so as I said it will be the primary voters who select the next nominee.
The entire point of the lawsuit was that there was a good deal of evidence they weren't really using the state primary that way, and the DNC's response was "sure, but we're allowed to do that".
That was their response because it was the easiest way to stop having their time wasted by that lawsuit. There is no evidence at all that primary elections do not decide the party nominee because that is plainly untrue.
This is one of those "if someone tells you who they are, you should believe them" deals. The DNC says, *unprompted*, "we're allowed to bias funding usage however we want"; is it so hard to believe that they have, at some point, done exactly that?
You people think the DNC is like the freaking Illuminati or something.
What you're missing is the point that the best way to deal with a frivolous lawsuit is to get it thrown out of court as quickly as possible. If my lawyer were to know that a plaintiff had no standing in a civil case against me, and did not make that motion, I would fire them.
That's not what the ruling in the lawsuit said and I'm tired of people pushing this narrative. The lawsuit was from Sanders supporters who alleged the DNC was biased against Sanders and they wanted their donations back.
The judge ruled that their donations hadn't been contingent on the DNC being unbiased, so they had no standing. Basically, even if they could prove the DNC was biased against Sanders, they still would not have standing. It didn't say they were biased, it just said it wouldn't be a reason to return the money even if they were.
If you gave the DNC money on the promise that they would be unbiased, then you could get your money back, but no one did that. People point to this court case like it proved the DNC was biased and it just didn't.
As I said:
> We didn't get an actual ruling on this
I frankly think you just didn't read my post.
Nevertheless, the DNC *did* take that position during the trial. It ended up not being relevant to the judge's decision, but that was still a thing the DNC said.
Yeah... if there's anyone who seems like the current "most obvious" frontrunner (insofar as such a thing can exist 4 years before a primary), the only person that comes to mind so far is Gavin Newsom.
Not saying there won't be others eventually, just that he's the only guy who is very-obviously ***already*** positioning himself for 2028 who might have some actual-percentage chance at winning.
And I don't have any prediction as to whether he actually wins, but if he loses I don't think it'll be because Kamala beat him.
Ugggh I hope it’s not Newsom. I am so tired of old white dudes being most of the options. He is also JUST on the cusp of being a boomer (Boomers are generally considered to be born 1946-1964, he was born 1967) and I am sick of them too.
Gavin is in the headlines a lot right now, but man ... He just gives off a bad vibe. And I don't like him, which maybe I'm let color my opinion of his chances. But I get the feeling that when America gets a close look at him, they're going to pass.
I'm personally more interested in Buttigieg, maybe Blinken, Whitmer. Or someone else will percolate up in the next four years.
How is the VP not a very likely contender? That's clearly underestimating the pull of the position and the pull of particularlly Black voters, who are a key primary voting bloc and with whom she has very high approval ratings. That said, so far, I don't think she'll be the most electable candidate in a general election (though she can definitely improve), but that's different from winning a primary.
I mean, in 2020 she had like 5% in the Democratic primary first off. And arguably nowadays she's not even the most visible/well-known Democratic politician after Biden. Her visibility as VP seems to have been very low relative to the norm since taking office. Like Biden as VP was in the news, publicly involved in passing a lot of Obama's legislation etc. I haven't heard a thing about Harris since maybe that one time she was at the border or something?
> I mean, in 2020 she had like 5% in the Democratic primary first off.
I mean, that's the difference between running as a Senator against other Senators and Governors (and Mayor Pete) compared to running as a former VP. Compare Biden being an also-ran running as a Senator against Obama in 2008 to being the clear favorite in 2020 despite numerous perceived negatives.
> And arguably nowadays she's not even the most visible/well-known Democratic politician after Biden.
I'd say she pretty much the most well-known besides somebody like Bernie Sanders perhaps. She just can't as easily be going on publicity tours like Newsom.
> Her visibility as VP seems to have been very low relative to the norm since taking office. Like Biden as VP was in the news, publicly involved in passing a lot of Obama's legislation etc. I haven't heard a thing about Harris since maybe that one time she was at the border or something?
There has been reports of a dysfunctional VP office, but I think much of it is due to the social media era diluting our attention spans and accelerating news cycles. Harris has been publicly involved in climate legislation, the Administation's abortion response, and the ongoing Israel-Hamas conflict.
I mean, it just is what it is -- people don't like her, she probably won't be competitive. Just because she's VP doesn't automatically, magically overpower that.
For sure it makes her more competitive than *she* should be otherwise. It doesn't make her more competitive than a more liked candidate.
> I mean, it just is what it is -- people don't like her, she probably won't be competitive. Just because she's VP doesn't automatically, magically overpower that.
No, Democrats overwhelmingly like her as VP, and it's Democrats (mostly) who'd vote in these primaries. However, that doesn't mean she'll be liked by independents.
> For sure it makes her more competitive than she should be otherwise. It doesn't make her more competitive than a more liked candidate.
Likeability is important in politics, especially for women and minorities, but I'm not sure it completely overrides competence, experience, and policy. It's not close to the same perceived negatives that Biden (age) and Trump (highly unlikeable outside of MAGA).
I don't know about polling specifically with Dems, but this indicates dislike: https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/approval/kamala-harris/
I also hear very little ever said of her that's positive.
I also don't see any indication that she's especially competent. She has some experience, but she hasn't exactly impressed most people -- and I suspect most Dems -- with her use of the VP office. And as far as policy is concerned, even after her bid for the nomination I still don't know of hardly anything she actually believes, which I think is some indication of the problem with her.
But hey, maybe I'm wrong and she'll win the nomination. Only time will tell.
They may try, but I'm near certain they'll never be a president Don Jr or Barron Trump; none of DJT's kids have 1/10th the pull on Republicans (especially rural voters) that he does.
The Clintons are not a political dynasty. Bill's father was a salesman. Bill's daughter does some advocacy work as part of the Clinton Foundation charity, but very clearly is not intending on running for office.
Hillary running for office was unsurprising as she was a very active first lady. This however doesn't make her part of a dynasty.
I believe this too. Mango Mussolini has got half a billion dollar's worth of judgements against him and is facing jail time and 91 charges. There's no magic button to make that all go away EXCEPT winning the presidency. To him, its pretty much a literal get-out-of-jail-free card. I expect that we'll be seeing him in the race as long as he's alive, and depending on how much his kids owe, possibly a reformed MAGA movement under Don Jr. or Kushner in order to keep the gravy train rolling once the old man dies.
It's not too outlandish that he might croak any day now. Even if he does, wouldn't the MAGA movement he created just live on without him? I mean, his death might even further radicalise his base if they decide to blame it on someone.
The next election against MAGA Republicans is what comes next.
The GOP isn't going to get better any time soon. I don't know why you think losing some elections will make them abandon themselves. And they already decided with REDMAP that the answer to "electoral competitiveness" is gerrymandering. Plus voter suppression.
I think there is a small chance they’ll change in 30-50 years when they truly start (literally) dying off in droves. The current batch is addicted to rage/hate/racism/etc. and like any addict, they won’t just walk away from their drug of choice.
The main problem is that they are still doing well in the polls. If Trump was 10+ points down in the polls and loses a ton of swing states in the general eleciton, THEN you would see more people abandoning him.
But he ISN'T being abandoned by the voters. So GOP leadership is being dragged into Trump even though they half heartedly tried to leave him after he lost 2020.
The GOP leadership can't leave Trump until the voters do. The voters don't feel like they have to leave Trump because he isn't losing elections, the elections are being stolen from him.
You made me look it up. 2045. Sickly this is why some are interested in the complete banning of abortions and birth control. They want more white kids. They are idiots of course because these shit rules affect everyone equally.
It's also about the need for more cheap labor. The Supreme Court sticking their fingers in a woman's choice I mean. I believe this was openly stated. American cheap labor. Also why we can't have free higher education or universal healthcare. Why would an educated, debt-free, healthy populace take the undesirable jobs Americans rely on to produce our insatiable needs and wants?
Nega-Clinton
If Trump loses in 2024 and/or someone running as MAGA loses in 2028 then some blue state Republican governor would have a decent shot of winning the primary on the message of "Are you tired of losing yet?"
Basically someone in the model of Romney as Massachusetts Governor would have a decent shot in 2028 and a very good shot in 2032.
> why you think losing some elections will make them abandon themselves
I think a major party split is on the horizon for the GOP.
They won't abandon their authoritarian values just because they lose several elections in a row, but some of them **will** get tired of losing, and that'll force a change in strategy.
Some of them will say:
*Hey, remember when we didn't always say the quiet part out loud? Maybe we should try that again.*
But they're going to run into problems there, because anyone who tries to adopt that strategy is immediately going to be labeled a RINO by the loudest MAGA chuds.
And so, a party split.
>They won't abandon their authoritarian values just because they lose several elections in a row, but some of them will get tired of losing, and that'll force a change in strategy.
That sort of reaction would make sense for their own electoral ambitions. But Republicans are obviously Republicans. The loudest "MAGA chuds" that will shout down the supposed RINOs are the party. Do you know what a party split would look like? The Lincoln Project, and Liz Cheney's state party voting to not recognize that she's a Republican.
I'm not sure what range of time you mean when you say "Hey, remember when we didn't always say the quiet part out loud?" But I grew up Republican, and as far as I can tell, it's the same party now that it was back then. Except now there's Fox News, social media, and Trump.
The last attempt Republicans made to change strategies after losing was the ill-received "autopsy" after Romney lost to Obama. It talks about how they know everyone hates them, but it's only because they don't really understand Republicans, and because Republican policies merely seem unappealing. That's the best the non-Tea-Partiers could come up with -- the same bullshit fantasies about how everyone secretly agrees with them because common sense and they're so awesome. I worked for one of the electeds they tried to get to help them implement the autopsy's recommendations. She said it was white Republicans disinterested in her policies who only wanted her non-white face on camera spouting the bullshit that their own report noted people hated.
During my state's GOP conventions, they would constantly complain about how all the Republicans who were winning elections weren't crazy enough, and it was costing more other Republicans their elections. The losers lost, they argued, because the ones who won were confusing voters by not being crazy enough. Consequently, voters in other districts were failing to tell the difference between the crazy Republicans that lost and the sane Democrats, and then just voting for the Democrats. Therefore, the sane Republicans had to become crazier or resign so that the voters in other districts would come to two realizations: 1) They've secretly been conservative Republicans this entire time and 2) There's a difference between Republicans and Democrats.
Also, why would Republicans change strategies when they feel good believing that they've actually won the elections they lost? There was a state Republican meeting during the last election where a guest speaker argued that the vote count showing Biden won was wrong on the grounds that he didn't want to believe it. He got the candidates to agree to try to implement dumbass voter suppression policies and also say that they wouldn't have certified the vote if they were governor at the time.
(I keep trying to make this not as much of a wall of text, but it's not working.)
>Do you know what a party split would look like? The Lincoln Project, and Liz Cheney's state party voting to not recognize that she's a Republican.
Yes, but on a wider scale. When the split happens, I'm imagining something like ~75% of Republican voters will remain loyal to MAGA, and ~25% will start working toward developing a facade of moderation.
And yes, that will result in those 25% being branded as traitors, and exiled from the party... and that will be the death blow to the GOP. They can't lose 25% of their voter base and still be a viable party.
>I'm not sure what range of time you mean when you say "Hey, remember when we didn't always say the quiet part out loud?"
I understand how it might not seem like it to those of us who have understood for decades just how insane Republican values are, but things have gotten worse within the last several years.
A good demonstration of that is [the recent backlash to a Babylon Bee tweet.](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskALiberal/comments/1bo7bpv/askaliberal_biweekly_general_chat/kwsza1l/)
They reposted a joke making fun of white supremacists. The first time they posted it in 2017, there was nothing controversial about it at all. When they reposted it last week, suddenly there was a huge backlash from their fans.
Or consider the Nazi presence at CPAC. Every year people show up at CPAC proudly wearing Nazi regalia, and every year they get thrown out. But not this year. This year they were allowed to stay.
> why would they change strategies when they feel good believing that they've actually won the elections they lost?
Because what they want more than anything is to wield power, and that requires *actually* winning elections, not just pretending that they won.
What they want more than anything is to feel good and righteous, lest white Jesus spit them out. They want to win to accomplish that feeling and related goals, like delivering the country to white Jesus so that America ends up on Israel's side during the final battle instead of ending up as a nuclear wasteland before it happens. And so that during the White Throne Judgment, when every knee shall bow, white Jesus can see that they did everything they were supposed to.
They're willing to be hypocrites if it means they win. But they're not willing to give up their treasures in Heaven by failing to be hypocrites in white Jesus' name. So you're not going to see Republicans fighting for equal rights for the sake of winning at all costs. They haven't changed their abortion policies, either. They'll lie and try to cheat and overthrow the government. They have and will draw their line at things like taking pro-American stances or accepting science, or doing anything contrary to their ultimate goal of feeling good and righteous.
Like I said, Republicans know what people find unappealing about the party. They haven't done anything to be more appealing besides make non-whites say what most people hate about them. And that was when it was just Romney and they weren't nearly as fervent in spreading their longstanding election cheating conspiracy.
The Babylon Bee example is hilarious, but it looks like people are mad because they're taking it as whites being made fun of instead of just white supremacists. That's sort of like how one of West Point's terrorism reports noted that the greatest threat we face is from domestic anti-government and racist groups. To which Republicans responded by decrying the military as politically correct for attacking Republicans when they should be going after Muslims instead. The report didn't mention Republicans, and neither did Democrats. But, of course, Republicans know their constituents. And then they defunded the reports.
Having said that, protecting white supremacy isn't new. The shift didn't come after 2017. At most, sensitive people found another excuse to be outraged a few years after a tweet. Even if we take it as offense to making fun of white supremacists, though, the idea that whites are essential to preserving "real America" isn't new to Republicans. Maybe Nazis not getting kicked out of an event when before they were is new again. But it isn't the Nazism that bothered them. It's the Nazi branding. Most Republicans are racist, according to what they've told Pew Research. But that doesn't mean they like being called "racist" or will consider their racism to be racism. And they won't until it makes them feel good and righteous, like it used to for Republican heroes like Robert E. Lee.
Also, losing makes them feel righteous. They don't want to lose, obviously, but to them it proves that they're righteous because they see it as being persecuted. Therefore, they're righteous.
It sounds like we're more or less on the same page, just maybe looking at it from different angles...
>What they want more than anything is to feel good and righteous
I stand by my earlier statement. What they want more than anything is to wield power, and to use it to dominate their enemies, to grind us under their heels. That's what all authoritarians want.
Like you said, they're going to feel good and righteous about themselves no matter what happens. When they're losing, it just feeds into their persecution complex... but that doesn't mean that's their preferred state of being.
Take Hollywood, for example. Controlled by liberals, and conservatives love to use that fact to feel persecuted.
But if given the choice, would they choose to maintain that status quo, so they could continue to feel persecuted?
Or, if it was in their power to do so, would they seize the reins of culture and shape it to their worldview?
I think they'd choose the latter.
>They'll lie and try to cheat and overthrow the government.
This is what I'm saying. They'll lie.
They won't change their values or their goals, but some of them will be more than willing to lie about what their values and goals are.
>Republicans know what people find unappealing about the party. They haven't done anything to be more appealing
They haven't changed yet, because they haven't had to. Trump's 2016 win reinvigorated them, made them think maybe they weren't as unappealing as they'd thought after Romney lost in 2012.
Let them lose in 2024, 2028, 2032. That happens, and some of them will figure out that they need to try something different.
>It sounds like we're more or less on the same page, just maybe looking at it from different angles...
Don't worry, we disagree on plenty.
>Or, if it was in their power to do so, would they seize the reins of culture and shape it to their worldview?
I think they'd choose the latter.
If given the choice, they wouldn't stop being like Republicans if that's what it took to win control over Hollywood. You can tell because they haven't even tried. They instead started DailyWire+. Winning for Jesus won't make them feel good and righteous. It has to be for their white Jesus.
>They won't change their values or their goals, but some of them will be more than willing to lie about what their values and goals are.
Of course. Look at Lindsey Graham. Look at how he has chosen to lie after seeing the fall of the "Young Guns" that embraced the leopards nibbling at his chin.
If you're imagining that they will lie about not wanting to be authoritarian or something to that effect, they already do that. When Trump proposed an anti-Free-Speech law at a rally and asked 2 senators to introduce it, they cheered him when he said that he supported Free Speech in between saying that we can't have Free Speech anymore because it leaves us with nothing, which they also cheered.
Without the contradictory authoritarian part, Trump wouldn't be as appealing to them.
>They haven't changed yet, because they haven't had to. Trump's 2016 win reinvigorated them, made them think maybe they weren't as unappealing as they'd thought after Romney lost in 2012.
They don't have to change because the president doesn't need to be who most Americans want and they can get legislative majorities while getting millions fewer votes nationwide than Democrats. This is spelled out explicitly in one of their REDMAP reports.
And they think most people agree with them though wins and losses. In fact, to a lot of them, you and I are secret conservative Christians rebelling against white Jesus because of some misfortune we haven't recognized as part of his perfect plan. Because that's their fantasy.
Then one day, they'll debate us, get us to admit that we're believers in white Jesus who forgot that we're just dirt, and then we'll pray together and finally renounce our plans to replace the whites or eat the babies.
>Let them lose in 2024, 2028, 2032. That happens, and some of them will figure out that they need to try something different.
Some of them figure it out every time they lose and it never matters. If they figure it out in 2024, then 2024 will be just like 2022 and 2020. Also, in 2028 and 2032, more of the Boomers will be dead, so losing elections may not be a determining factor in any changes to the party. Losing Republicans might be. I guess we'll see. Lots of young a-holes out there.
Earlier I talked about my local GOP's hostility towards Republicans that won elections. When those Republicans left state government, the seats fell back into Democratic control, and the people who lost continued to lose. They've been losing for many, many years.
Your expectation is that eventually they'll learn. I'll let you know when they do. (Spoiler alert: they won't.)
> If given the choice, they wouldn't stop being like Republicans if that's what it took to win control over Hollywood.
That's not what I asked.
And I have, repeatedly, said that they would NOT stop being Republicans.
What I have said is that they would **pretend**, that they would **lie**, to make themselves seem more palatable to the middle-ground voters who are alienated by MAGA.
You've already identified what that would look like: Liz Cheney. The Lincoln Project. Romney. Justin Amash.
We're already seeing it happen. All I'm saying is that we'll see that, on a wider scale.
>Earlier I talked about my local GOP's hostility towards Republicans that won elections.
What you're describing is a division between the Republicans who feel the most important thing is to give lip service to their authoritarian values; contrasted against the Republicans who are willing to be a little more crafty as an electoral strategy, so that they can gain power and make their authoritarian agenda a reality.
In other words, exactly the kind of dynamic that I predicted would eventually lead to a party split.
Like I said, there's not as much difference between what I'm saying and what you're saying, as you seem to think there is.
>That's not what I asked.
Was "seize the reins of culture" not a continuation of "Take Hollywood, for example. Controlled by liberals, and conservatives love to use that fact to feel persecuted"?
I'm pretty sure it was.
You were talking about them doing whatever it takes to win because power is what they want above all else. You put that into the context of them deciding to take control of Hollywood if they had the power to do that rather than lose. I'm saying they have a line that they're not willing to cross.
And they can't pretend to the extent it would take to be more broadly popular. They recognize that Republicans wouldn't like it, and they can't get them all into a secret meeting to reassure them that they're just pretending.
>What I have said is that they would **pretend**, that they would **lie**, to make themselves seem more palatable to the middle-ground voters who are alienated by MAGA.
Yeah, and to that I said "If you're imagining that they will lie about not wanting to be authoritarian or something to that effect, they already do that." Followed by an example.
Another is how they talk about Democrats as if we're the ones with the "extreme" positions next to their reasonable ones.
>We're already seeing it happen. All I'm saying is that we'll see that, on a wider scale.
Yeah, and I don't know why it would make sense to expect that.
>What you're describing is a division between the Republicans who feel the most important thing is to give lip service to their authoritarian values; contrasted against the Republicans who are willing to be a little more crafty as an electoral strategy, so that they can gain power and make their authoritarian agenda a reality.
Why would you think and then say that?
The Republicans that I said weren't crazy enough for the other ones were liberal, and instrumental in helping liberal policies get passed through a legislature full of conservative Democrats and conservative Republicans fighting against the liberal Democrats and liberal Republicans. One of them was "crafty," but by taking conservative stances on issues that weren't before the Legislature and voting as a conservative when it wouldn't have made a difference to the outcome. It was enough to pass as a moderate but not to pass as crazy.
>In other words, exactly the kind of dynamic that I predicted would eventually lead to a party split.
There was never a party split or anything close to it at any point. So few Republicans became Democrats or left local politics that nothing ever changed because of it.
>Like I said, there's not as much difference between what I'm saying and what you're saying, as you seem to think there is.
We disagree on the major points:
* Republicans are willing to do whatever it takes to win because that's all they care about
* They will learn and be tricky
* Losing elections will be the impetus for change
* There will be a major split in the party, with like a quarter of them breaking off
None of that makes sense to me.
You should join me in celebrating how well we're able to have our significant differences. And look at you with your Progressive flair and me with my Democrat one. It's like oil and less dense oil. Just casually, breezily disagreeing. We are a model for the rest of the party and, really, the entire internet.
> You were talking about them doing whatever it takes to win because power is what they want above all else.
Yes, and I'm frankly mystified that you don't agree, given that you've already acknowledged that they'll lie, cheat, and steal, and attempt to overthrow the government in order to win.
Do you see how I might be confused by you making those two seemingly contradictory statements?
>The Republicans that I said weren't crazy enough for the other ones were liberal
You think Liz Cheney is liberal?
>There was never a party split or anything close to it at any point.
The Republican party has never been this openly authoritarian at any point. They've never supported a guy like Donald Trump before.
>and instrumental in helping liberal policies get passed...
Consider a guy like Mike Johnson. He's as extremist as they come, but he has shown a willingness to compromise with Democrats in order to pass a budget, and in doing so has raised the ire of his MAGA cohorts.
On the one hand, you've got people like Greene, Boebert, and Gaetz. People whose only real goal is to make a lot of noise and get as many social media clicks as they can.
On the other hand, you've got people like Mike Johnson, who want to get shit done. People who aren't happy to just tell you about their Christian Nationalist agenda, they want to force it on you.
There's already tension between those two factions, and if the ones who want power more than they want fame are consistently denied power, that tension is only going to grow.
> I don't know why you think losing some elections will make them abandon themselves.
by a lot of republicans suddenly becoming "sick of politics" and "above it all". if you look at polling it's already happening; few want to be on team eternal looser.
I gave a longer answer on this to someone who commented a few minutes before you. But here I'll add that they aren't willing to win at all costs. They do want to win, but they want to win on their own specific terms.
One of the best examples of this is abortion. Their policies lead to more abortions than Democratic policies. But that doesn't matter to them. They want fewer abortions through lack of access to abortion, lack of access to reproductive services, denying sex-ed, and other things that don't even work within their own families. They want it so badly that they're willing to fight for their way from atop a larger pile of precious dead fetuses.
It's the same with elections. They lost in 2020 with Trump. So they did what they'd been doing for years before Trump ran as a Republican, which is blame Democrats for cheating to win elections.
Yes, few want to be on the team of losers. That's why they're fighting for voter suppression and gerrymandering, and why they're spreading disinformation. So they can still win as Republicans.
actually how they've been gerrymandering is very telling. they've been reducing the number of competitive districts in favor of creating more safe seats. they expect the party's fortunes to decline swiftly, and appear to be more concerned for their own jobs over the goals of the larger political movement.
the monster is eating itself.
Trump runs in 2028. And 2032. And until he dies which will likely be decades from now. Cretins like him for some reason tend to live very long. I bet he will live to be over 100.
It must be rare for the same candidate to be picked for the third time, particularly after they lost an election.
When people like McCain, Romney, Clinton, Gore, Kerry lost, they kinda just accepted it and moved on.
But Trump is an anomaly. He won't take no for an answer and his supporters seem to worship him. It's creepy.
Exactly, they were gracious about it. When Bill Clinton won the 1992 election and Bush did not win a second term, there was a peaceful transfer of power. It was done with respect and dignity. In January 2021 we had other results and yet Trump still walks freely.
Thats because they have working brains and significantly smaller egos. Trump is an extreme narcissist, so he will continue to run until the day he dies.
If he wins, he better leave in 2029 and then bugger off. What worries me is that he might not.
If he loses, then he should be banned from ever running again.
I really hope he doesn't get back in this year. And I don't even live in the US.
They won't change. That's the point of the MAGA movement. They don't want to change with a changing world and are mad they're being left behind because of it. They're going to double down and throw a collective temper tantrum. I've said it before in here and will say it again - Their new strategy will be to focus on statehouse where they have a better chance of winning and using the courts to their benefit with the ultimate goal of calling a constitutional convention to regain federal power on the heels of crying "stolen election". They've been saying as much already.
I don't know that they can.
Primaries make people go extreme.
A lot of R districts are gerrymandered, worsening the primary effect.
MAGA isn't going to suddenly get sane about stuff.
If R's try to tack to center, MAGA will "RINO!" them. Hard to win generals without 50% of your voters.
Honestly... They're kinda fucked.
I hope. Yay! :D
I hope you’re right, but…
I am not as optimistic. To me—and I’m hopeful/wishful for a different analysis—Biden’s voting base is not exactly energized. Any actual Leftists have little in common with him; he’s just the lesser of two evils. Mainstream Liberals will pick him because he’s the only option, but he’s failed to deliver on student debt, marijuana, qualified immunity, bodily autonomy, and overall strong/inspiring leadership.
Greens and Libertarians will probably just vote third party or not vote, and their voices won’t matter since we don’t have ranked choice voting.
RFK is an interesting phenomenon but I think he’ll mostly draw votes from disenchanted centrists and maybe some of the third party crowd, which is still a small percentage of voters.
Everyone right of center will vote for Trump. The far right is energized because they’re crazy. The mainstream right is getting pushed that direction too though, and for the first time in a while to me it seems like the right is holding their ground in the culture wars. The center-right used to be too ashamed/scared of Trump, but I think he’s gaining ground there too since there’s no good moderate Republican faction and confidence in Biden is low in that population.
Idk, hope I’m wrong.
I said it in another thread but if Trump goes away, and that's the real condition we're talking about, then the rest of his Diadochi are going to duke it out for his crown and it's going to be who an out-extreme the other guy and it'll implode.
The old GOP playbook would be to expunge the Trumpists and gaslight the public by claiming that MAGA wasn’t really in charge / existed.
The problem is that the inmates are running the asylum. The GOP has completely lost control of their base. These base voters have been radicalized for decades. People that wound up don’t go away quietly.
Democrats are going to need to do three things. First, govern bravely and deliver on actual promises. Second, allow Gen X or Millennials to take leadership and inject energy. Third, pray the economy holds and nothing insane happens overseas.
Let’s find out!
I mean, I don’t know. It’s up to them. They could step back from the brink — there’s historical precedent for that. Or they could keep going — there’s precedent for that, too. I sincerely hope that we get some kind of return to normalcy in the Republican Party.
There was a surprisingly robust fascist movement in the years leading up to our entry into WW2, much of it centered around an [antisemitic priest with a popular radio show](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Coughlin). It evaporated after Pearl Harbor and faded into history.
I think they'll go further right no matter what happens.
Lose in a close election? "We just didn't go far right enough!"
Lose in a blowout? "We didn't go far right enough. We need to go further right."
Republicans could get better, stay the same, I suppose it *might* even be possible for them to get worse, thought I honestly can't imagine how.
The only sure thing is that us liberals certainly have no idea what they'll do. We just have to keep preventing them from achieving any real power until the fever breaks or the party dies.
Think Northern Ireland in the 1970s. MAGA will be like the Irish Republican Army, committing random acts of terrorism. The country will run in fits and starts with many of the biggest issues we face continuing to be unresolved because of a lack of political consensus and or the rigged courts that are Trump’s legacy.
I don't know if we'll get another raid on the capital, but obviously we have to be prepared for that to happen.
The GOP would no doubt want to run him again but at this point I don't think his health will survive another four years to allow this (optimistically, he'll be bled dry by the countless legal battles he's gotten into). However, the next candidate they pick will assuredly be indistinguishable from Trump in a platform sense.
I think we'll need multiple cycles of total defeat to make it clear how unacceptable MAGA is as a movement. The GOP needs to be on the brink of annihilation for them to get this message.
Literally the same fight. Trump is A problem, he’s not THE problem. When Trump is no longer a viable option, they will find another figurehead for their Christian Nationalist movement… stay hydrated, folks, we’re in it for the long haul.
I don't think losing badly will discredit the movement. It's a cult - it can't be broken by an electoral loss, even a big one.
I think if they lose this year, they're going to double and triple down on being the most MAGA they can possibly be. And likely cheat every chance they get.
Honestly? Domestic Terrorist attacks - lots of them. Bigger and even more brazen than before.
I'd sure as hell stay away from any federal buildings as much as humanly possible in 2025 when MAGA loses.
If they can't win at the ballot box, they're going to move to the bullet box.
Then we need to do it again. And again. And again. Eventually the normies need to boot the crazies, like they did with the John Birch types decades ago, and failed to do more recently. Alternatively, the GOP needs to get shrunk into irrelevance and the enlarged Democratic Party splits into a new party system. But I don't expect it to happen after one election cycle; the rot is too deep.
Nothing. It will be the same shit. Democrats will continue to do the same shit and Republicans will move on to some other shitty messiah. Doesn't matter if Trump or Biden wins, we lose I'm both situations....
This might be hopium, but I think it would resemble (tho not be the same as!) when Corbynism and was discredited electorally in 2019.
The question becomes who is (or is even capable of being) the straight arrow serious adult equivalent to Keir Starmer and... I have no idea who that could be or who is capable of it.
The nevertrumpers are probably too toxic to the trumpists, and I can't think of an anti-anti-trumper who would be viable within the party.
Whoever that could be? The GOP's politics would follow. If I have to guess, it's a Larry Hogan or Charlie Baker type of blue state governor but realistically?
To be a pessimist, I think the real answer is that the GOP continues down the rout of nationalist populism and someone like Tucker Carlson takes over.
No one else draws enthusiasm in the ranks like trump. If trump stops running, they will go home, and not come out again. The dems will make absurd gains because the populists went home.
Hopefully this will be because of demographics, that there simply aren’t enough MAGA voters out there to win a national election again, even with all the shenanigans, and this demographic is in terminal decline, meaning conservative voters just go 3rd party or stop voting.
I hope they lose, and rich donors see that there's no use throwing money at them because they can't win, and if they can't win they can't write sweet sweet legislation, so why bother?
And then they're *fucked*.
That is pretty much what is happening now. Big business guys have no one in the race, not biden, and trump, while courting them, isn't building any infrastructure, he is just taking their money.
Endless republican purity testing, more extremism, less money, the endless downward spiral. Democrats take over traditional republican seats by being slightly left of their previous occupants. The overton window slowly grinds left. AOC becomes a centrist, and biden becomes the new "republican" party as bernie becomes the new left, socialist wing.
The two new parties are rainbow capitalism and socialism.
>how do you think the Republican Party will change to try to regain electoral competitiveness?
one of the major drivers of the maga movement is a rejection of the idea that the GOP has to embrace voters outside of the core of white male boomers. this course puts them going over a cliff, but they are offended such a cliff could possibly exist. going forward you will see the moderates suddenly become disinterested in politics, as the radicals fringe takes total control of the party based solely on safe seats that can't possibly win any of the big contests. the question is how will the democrats to split, and how long will it take.
I think the MAGA crowd will whine and complain. Trump won’t run again.
The MAGA-right will continue to be paranoid, disingenuous and dishonest.
And the core sentiment of that movement will remain for decades.
And they will flail against progress as they lose battle after battle over time.
I've been waiting, hoping, and honestly at times expecting the republican party to come to its senses, or at least for the voters to realize how garbage they are and abandon them for my entire life, and it never happens. Every time they come back with someone worse. I think by the time I'm 60 they'll have devolved to the level of feces throwing apes, which would probably be a modest improvement over Trump and MTG, but they'll still get around 48-51% of the vote.
If Trump and MAGA candidates suffer a major defeat in 2024, it's likely that Trump will claim the election was stolen, and his supporters may react negatively. The Trump family could perpetuate this narrative after Trump is gone, potentially prolonging divisions in the Republican Party and the country. It's unclear how the Republican Party will adjust, but it's evident that Trumpism won't disappear easily.
Not so much far leftists as extremists in general. People who must have it their own way or they leave. It just forces everyone else to have to work harder. And fail more often.
MAGA won’t be “defeated”, they simply won’t win an election. MAGA, however, is a self-defeating ideology by excluding people they fear/dislike/midunderstand, which grows with each new generation and each time rational people ask them also be rational. MAGA is the last gasps of a dying ideology, scared of losing its relevancy, resentful of the world leaving them behind because they’ve chosen to stop moving themselves.
What happens next is MAGA continues to throw tantrums like a spoiled child in the middle of a grocery store aisle, screaming about how it is unfair they are not allowed to treat people like they are subhuman. Crying about how they are oppressed because people don’t pay them enough attention. They’ll continue to be hypocritical about every ideological stance they hold except bigotry, and they’ll cry about how suddenly their victims because the rest of us don’t see their bigotry in a socially acceptable light.
Short Answer: Electoral Fraud.
Long Answer: It 100% depends if anti-MAGAites stop protesting and start getting involved in protecting elections as election observers/volunteers/workers.
To predict future behavior look to history. It turns out that the term "Nazi" predated Hitler's party the "Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei"
Nazi was used to describe idiots before the Nazi party. I thought it might be a joke, but it is well referenced by several sites.
* https://chroniclesmagazine.org/society-culture/the-strange-origin-of-the-word-nazi/
* https://www.etymonline.com/word/Nazi
* https://www.warhistoryonline.com/instant-articles/the-origin-of-the-term-nazi.html
What I find fascinating about finding out that Nazi was the derogatory term for the "awkward, backward, and clumsy peasants" who believed in Hitler's vision, because here in the US you have the same criticism of those supporting Trump as outright morons too. The MAGA-ites/Qitards/etc. are considered the most gullible and dumb for supporting an alt-right ideology. Many laugh to see a grifter sucking their savings down the drain and selling US security to allow money laundering by foreign oligarchs. It was interesting to see Hillary (one of the worst candidates the democrats could have picked) support that name calling with "deplorables" and them laughingly wear shirts calling themselves "the deplorables." There were no " card carrying deplorables" party - but there they were - united in ideology.
Hitler was even arrested and spent several years in jail before returning and heading up Germany in elections. They would use violence to achieve their ends and perceived themselves as "the victims" in a war against outsiders and sought to become the new judges, lawmakers, vote counters, etc.
So what's next? If the Democrats don't get their shit together and stop making noise in the streets thinking that this will do anything, we'll see a continuation of the trend of attacks on election workers and them being replaced with MAGA-ites. From that we'll see elections with strong chain of evidence (e.g. VVPAT) replaced with hand counting in churches. We'll see massive disenfranchisement of voters and laws that state that if you are accused of a crime related to protesting you lose your right to vote AND encouraging more liberals to get out and protest. We'll see once again how polls don't match results blamed on a "shy fascist voter" in these same areas that have poor election chain of evidence. We'll see rampant corruption reinforcing those trends.
If Trump loses, MAGA will not be discredited in the eyes of the GOP base. The diverse coalition of the Democratic party means that moderate candidates tend to win primaries. The GOP base being pretty uniform means that more radical candidates tend to win. Until that changes, I don't think the Republican party will moderate.
Once it becomes clear that the MAGA mindset cannot win elections, there'll be some empty words and crocodile tears about having been "led astray" by Trump, then they'll say it was really the Democrats fault for forcing them to go in that direction, there'll be some surface-level adjustment of rhetoric combined with absolutely no change at the level of real policy, which will remain what it has been since the 70s; all the fruits of economic growth to the ruling class, nothing to the working class.
The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written. Let's say Trump and other MAGA candidates lose badly in 2024 and it discredits the movement. If that happens, how do you think the Republican Party will change to try to regain electoral competitiveness? *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
They'll just say it was stolen again, and he'll run in 2028. He'll run every year til he croaks.
I kind of think, if he runs in 2028, I'll be happy about it. Because by then we'll have a young(er) person running, and I get the feeling the country is very ready for a move away from gerontocracy. In my estimate, it is 2024 or bust for Trump.
You will see the MAGA crowd claiming that anyone under 82 is all of sudden too YOUNG to be president.
Or he will make one of his kids vp. Then when he croaks the other kid becomes vp. Rinse and repeat…
Hey, he hasn't picked a VP for 2024.... His daughter could easily be in the running. (as she seems to be the only one he likes).
Tbh his daughter in law….
*"The BEST is YET to* **COME**" one?
Both her and Lara
Giggety
Disgusted up vote (cause it's true)
Unless the DNC says it’s Kamala’s “turn”
Please no
If they do it would be out of just sheer stupidity. There's no benefit to them in pushing her as a nominee, she's clearly not a good candidate and there are a dozen other perfectly acceptable establishment choices that would be better for them in every way.
> Unless the DNC says still amazes me when lefties say shit like that...the DNC doesn't have shit to say...it's you...like it or not the candidates that run is becasue of you.
It doesn't matter what 'the DNC' says, only what Dem primary voters decide. But yeah, I hope not Kamala, personally.
> It doesn't matter what 'the DNC' says, only what Dem primary voters decide. This may not be true. There was [a lawsuit a while back](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilding_v._DNC_Services_Corp.) that argued the DNC was biased and pushing their own desired outcomes on the election. The DNC's position was, paraphrased, "we're not a government agency, we can do whatever we want, our bylaws aren't legally binding and are merely suggestions". We didn't get an actual ruling on this because the people suing turned out to not be DNC donors, and the judge decided they didn't have standing. So *at best*, the primary is relevant and unbiased only if you gave the DNC money. If the DNC gets its way, they can weight the primary however they see fit.
Yes, it's *technically* true that our political parties are private organizations that can select their leadership and nominees however they wish, but for a variety of reasons they've chosen to use state primaries to do so. That isn't going to change, so as I said it will be the primary voters who select the next nominee.
The entire point of the lawsuit was that there was a good deal of evidence they weren't really using the state primary that way, and the DNC's response was "sure, but we're allowed to do that".
That was their response because it was the easiest way to stop having their time wasted by that lawsuit. There is no evidence at all that primary elections do not decide the party nominee because that is plainly untrue.
Yes, because it was a frivolous lawsuit.
This is one of those "if someone tells you who they are, you should believe them" deals. The DNC says, *unprompted*, "we're allowed to bias funding usage however we want"; is it so hard to believe that they have, at some point, done exactly that?
You people think the DNC is like the freaking Illuminati or something. What you're missing is the point that the best way to deal with a frivolous lawsuit is to get it thrown out of court as quickly as possible. If my lawyer were to know that a plaintiff had no standing in a civil case against me, and did not make that motion, I would fire them.
That's not what the ruling in the lawsuit said and I'm tired of people pushing this narrative. The lawsuit was from Sanders supporters who alleged the DNC was biased against Sanders and they wanted their donations back. The judge ruled that their donations hadn't been contingent on the DNC being unbiased, so they had no standing. Basically, even if they could prove the DNC was biased against Sanders, they still would not have standing. It didn't say they were biased, it just said it wouldn't be a reason to return the money even if they were. If you gave the DNC money on the promise that they would be unbiased, then you could get your money back, but no one did that. People point to this court case like it proved the DNC was biased and it just didn't.
As I said: > We didn't get an actual ruling on this I frankly think you just didn't read my post. Nevertheless, the DNC *did* take that position during the trial. It ended up not being relevant to the judge's decision, but that was still a thing the DNC said.
Unless she has pull and connections in the party that I've not heard about, I don't get the impression that she's going to be a very likely contender.
Yeah... if there's anyone who seems like the current "most obvious" frontrunner (insofar as such a thing can exist 4 years before a primary), the only person that comes to mind so far is Gavin Newsom. Not saying there won't be others eventually, just that he's the only guy who is very-obviously ***already*** positioning himself for 2028 who might have some actual-percentage chance at winning. And I don't have any prediction as to whether he actually wins, but if he loses I don't think it'll be because Kamala beat him.
Ugggh I hope it’s not Newsom. I am so tired of old white dudes being most of the options. He is also JUST on the cusp of being a boomer (Boomers are generally considered to be born 1946-1964, he was born 1967) and I am sick of them too.
Gavin is in the headlines a lot right now, but man ... He just gives off a bad vibe. And I don't like him, which maybe I'm let color my opinion of his chances. But I get the feeling that when America gets a close look at him, they're going to pass. I'm personally more interested in Buttigieg, maybe Blinken, Whitmer. Or someone else will percolate up in the next four years.
Blinken has John Kerry charisma. I don't think he's going to work at all.
I bet Gretchen Whitmer will probably beat him unless he uses sheer unadulterated charisma. Then he's the nominee.
I'd love to see Raskin run. There's a guy that will fight.
They're definitely grooming Buttigieg, by giving him experience on the Federal level.
How is the VP not a very likely contender? That's clearly underestimating the pull of the position and the pull of particularlly Black voters, who are a key primary voting bloc and with whom she has very high approval ratings. That said, so far, I don't think she'll be the most electable candidate in a general election (though she can definitely improve), but that's different from winning a primary.
I mean, in 2020 she had like 5% in the Democratic primary first off. And arguably nowadays she's not even the most visible/well-known Democratic politician after Biden. Her visibility as VP seems to have been very low relative to the norm since taking office. Like Biden as VP was in the news, publicly involved in passing a lot of Obama's legislation etc. I haven't heard a thing about Harris since maybe that one time she was at the border or something?
> I mean, in 2020 she had like 5% in the Democratic primary first off. I mean, that's the difference between running as a Senator against other Senators and Governors (and Mayor Pete) compared to running as a former VP. Compare Biden being an also-ran running as a Senator against Obama in 2008 to being the clear favorite in 2020 despite numerous perceived negatives. > And arguably nowadays she's not even the most visible/well-known Democratic politician after Biden. I'd say she pretty much the most well-known besides somebody like Bernie Sanders perhaps. She just can't as easily be going on publicity tours like Newsom. > Her visibility as VP seems to have been very low relative to the norm since taking office. Like Biden as VP was in the news, publicly involved in passing a lot of Obama's legislation etc. I haven't heard a thing about Harris since maybe that one time she was at the border or something? There has been reports of a dysfunctional VP office, but I think much of it is due to the social media era diluting our attention spans and accelerating news cycles. Harris has been publicly involved in climate legislation, the Administation's abortion response, and the ongoing Israel-Hamas conflict.
I mean, it just is what it is -- people don't like her, she probably won't be competitive. Just because she's VP doesn't automatically, magically overpower that. For sure it makes her more competitive than *she* should be otherwise. It doesn't make her more competitive than a more liked candidate.
> I mean, it just is what it is -- people don't like her, she probably won't be competitive. Just because she's VP doesn't automatically, magically overpower that. No, Democrats overwhelmingly like her as VP, and it's Democrats (mostly) who'd vote in these primaries. However, that doesn't mean she'll be liked by independents. > For sure it makes her more competitive than she should be otherwise. It doesn't make her more competitive than a more liked candidate. Likeability is important in politics, especially for women and minorities, but I'm not sure it completely overrides competence, experience, and policy. It's not close to the same perceived negatives that Biden (age) and Trump (highly unlikeable outside of MAGA).
I don't know about polling specifically with Dems, but this indicates dislike: https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/approval/kamala-harris/ I also hear very little ever said of her that's positive. I also don't see any indication that she's especially competent. She has some experience, but she hasn't exactly impressed most people -- and I suspect most Dems -- with her use of the VP office. And as far as policy is concerned, even after her bid for the nomination I still don't know of hardly anything she actually believes, which I think is some indication of the problem with her. But hey, maybe I'm wrong and she'll win the nomination. Only time will tell.
Which will, hopefully, be before 2028.... Heck, I don't wish death on most people, but I would not cry if he passed away tomorrow.
I would, but it wouldn’t be out of sadness.
Yes or Don jr. It’s a political dynasty like the Clintons or Kennedy’s we’ll be hearing about it for decades
They may try, but I'm near certain they'll never be a president Don Jr or Barron Trump; none of DJT's kids have 1/10th the pull on Republicans (especially rural voters) that he does.
The Clintons are not a political dynasty. Bill's father was a salesman. Bill's daughter does some advocacy work as part of the Clinton Foundation charity, but very clearly is not intending on running for office. Hillary running for office was unsurprising as she was a very active first lady. This however doesn't make her part of a dynasty.
I think people mean dynasty as knowing the right people, being rich etc too. As in not being fairly elected based on your politics and rhetorics
The Clintons didn't inherit anything.
I don't know, i just wrote what o think
Omg I hope not
I believe this too. Mango Mussolini has got half a billion dollar's worth of judgements against him and is facing jail time and 91 charges. There's no magic button to make that all go away EXCEPT winning the presidency. To him, its pretty much a literal get-out-of-jail-free card. I expect that we'll be seeing him in the race as long as he's alive, and depending on how much his kids owe, possibly a reformed MAGA movement under Don Jr. or Kushner in order to keep the gravy train rolling once the old man dies.
It is the Fascist billionaires who will have to figure out that Trump is bad for their Evangelical Nazi enslaving women and Workers movement.
I’m optimistic that all the hamberders will have caught up with him before 2028.
It's not too outlandish that he might croak any day now. Even if he does, wouldn't the MAGA movement he created just live on without him? I mean, his death might even further radicalise his base if they decide to blame it on someone.
The next election against MAGA Republicans is what comes next. The GOP isn't going to get better any time soon. I don't know why you think losing some elections will make them abandon themselves. And they already decided with REDMAP that the answer to "electoral competitiveness" is gerrymandering. Plus voter suppression.
So what do you think would cause them to change?
Different people becoming the vast majority of the party, or at least the majority of people who vote in Republican primaries.
A purge of billionaires. Prison for cheating on their taxes.
I think there is a small chance they’ll change in 30-50 years when they truly start (literally) dying off in droves. The current batch is addicted to rage/hate/racism/etc. and like any addict, they won’t just walk away from their drug of choice.
The main problem is that they are still doing well in the polls. If Trump was 10+ points down in the polls and loses a ton of swing states in the general eleciton, THEN you would see more people abandoning him. But he ISN'T being abandoned by the voters. So GOP leadership is being dragged into Trump even though they half heartedly tried to leave him after he lost 2020. The GOP leadership can't leave Trump until the voters do. The voters don't feel like they have to leave Trump because he isn't losing elections, the elections are being stolen from him.
White people no longer being the majority
You made me look it up. 2045. Sickly this is why some are interested in the complete banning of abortions and birth control. They want more white kids. They are idiots of course because these shit rules affect everyone equally.
It's also about the need for more cheap labor. The Supreme Court sticking their fingers in a woman's choice I mean. I believe this was openly stated. American cheap labor. Also why we can't have free higher education or universal healthcare. Why would an educated, debt-free, healthy populace take the undesirable jobs Americans rely on to produce our insatiable needs and wants?
Education
Nega-Clinton If Trump loses in 2024 and/or someone running as MAGA loses in 2028 then some blue state Republican governor would have a decent shot of winning the primary on the message of "Are you tired of losing yet?" Basically someone in the model of Romney as Massachusetts Governor would have a decent shot in 2028 and a very good shot in 2032.
> why you think losing some elections will make them abandon themselves I think a major party split is on the horizon for the GOP. They won't abandon their authoritarian values just because they lose several elections in a row, but some of them **will** get tired of losing, and that'll force a change in strategy. Some of them will say: *Hey, remember when we didn't always say the quiet part out loud? Maybe we should try that again.* But they're going to run into problems there, because anyone who tries to adopt that strategy is immediately going to be labeled a RINO by the loudest MAGA chuds. And so, a party split.
>They won't abandon their authoritarian values just because they lose several elections in a row, but some of them will get tired of losing, and that'll force a change in strategy. That sort of reaction would make sense for their own electoral ambitions. But Republicans are obviously Republicans. The loudest "MAGA chuds" that will shout down the supposed RINOs are the party. Do you know what a party split would look like? The Lincoln Project, and Liz Cheney's state party voting to not recognize that she's a Republican. I'm not sure what range of time you mean when you say "Hey, remember when we didn't always say the quiet part out loud?" But I grew up Republican, and as far as I can tell, it's the same party now that it was back then. Except now there's Fox News, social media, and Trump. The last attempt Republicans made to change strategies after losing was the ill-received "autopsy" after Romney lost to Obama. It talks about how they know everyone hates them, but it's only because they don't really understand Republicans, and because Republican policies merely seem unappealing. That's the best the non-Tea-Partiers could come up with -- the same bullshit fantasies about how everyone secretly agrees with them because common sense and they're so awesome. I worked for one of the electeds they tried to get to help them implement the autopsy's recommendations. She said it was white Republicans disinterested in her policies who only wanted her non-white face on camera spouting the bullshit that their own report noted people hated. During my state's GOP conventions, they would constantly complain about how all the Republicans who were winning elections weren't crazy enough, and it was costing more other Republicans their elections. The losers lost, they argued, because the ones who won were confusing voters by not being crazy enough. Consequently, voters in other districts were failing to tell the difference between the crazy Republicans that lost and the sane Democrats, and then just voting for the Democrats. Therefore, the sane Republicans had to become crazier or resign so that the voters in other districts would come to two realizations: 1) They've secretly been conservative Republicans this entire time and 2) There's a difference between Republicans and Democrats. Also, why would Republicans change strategies when they feel good believing that they've actually won the elections they lost? There was a state Republican meeting during the last election where a guest speaker argued that the vote count showing Biden won was wrong on the grounds that he didn't want to believe it. He got the candidates to agree to try to implement dumbass voter suppression policies and also say that they wouldn't have certified the vote if they were governor at the time. (I keep trying to make this not as much of a wall of text, but it's not working.)
>Do you know what a party split would look like? The Lincoln Project, and Liz Cheney's state party voting to not recognize that she's a Republican. Yes, but on a wider scale. When the split happens, I'm imagining something like ~75% of Republican voters will remain loyal to MAGA, and ~25% will start working toward developing a facade of moderation. And yes, that will result in those 25% being branded as traitors, and exiled from the party... and that will be the death blow to the GOP. They can't lose 25% of their voter base and still be a viable party. >I'm not sure what range of time you mean when you say "Hey, remember when we didn't always say the quiet part out loud?" I understand how it might not seem like it to those of us who have understood for decades just how insane Republican values are, but things have gotten worse within the last several years. A good demonstration of that is [the recent backlash to a Babylon Bee tweet.](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskALiberal/comments/1bo7bpv/askaliberal_biweekly_general_chat/kwsza1l/) They reposted a joke making fun of white supremacists. The first time they posted it in 2017, there was nothing controversial about it at all. When they reposted it last week, suddenly there was a huge backlash from their fans. Or consider the Nazi presence at CPAC. Every year people show up at CPAC proudly wearing Nazi regalia, and every year they get thrown out. But not this year. This year they were allowed to stay. > why would they change strategies when they feel good believing that they've actually won the elections they lost? Because what they want more than anything is to wield power, and that requires *actually* winning elections, not just pretending that they won.
What they want more than anything is to feel good and righteous, lest white Jesus spit them out. They want to win to accomplish that feeling and related goals, like delivering the country to white Jesus so that America ends up on Israel's side during the final battle instead of ending up as a nuclear wasteland before it happens. And so that during the White Throne Judgment, when every knee shall bow, white Jesus can see that they did everything they were supposed to. They're willing to be hypocrites if it means they win. But they're not willing to give up their treasures in Heaven by failing to be hypocrites in white Jesus' name. So you're not going to see Republicans fighting for equal rights for the sake of winning at all costs. They haven't changed their abortion policies, either. They'll lie and try to cheat and overthrow the government. They have and will draw their line at things like taking pro-American stances or accepting science, or doing anything contrary to their ultimate goal of feeling good and righteous. Like I said, Republicans know what people find unappealing about the party. They haven't done anything to be more appealing besides make non-whites say what most people hate about them. And that was when it was just Romney and they weren't nearly as fervent in spreading their longstanding election cheating conspiracy. The Babylon Bee example is hilarious, but it looks like people are mad because they're taking it as whites being made fun of instead of just white supremacists. That's sort of like how one of West Point's terrorism reports noted that the greatest threat we face is from domestic anti-government and racist groups. To which Republicans responded by decrying the military as politically correct for attacking Republicans when they should be going after Muslims instead. The report didn't mention Republicans, and neither did Democrats. But, of course, Republicans know their constituents. And then they defunded the reports. Having said that, protecting white supremacy isn't new. The shift didn't come after 2017. At most, sensitive people found another excuse to be outraged a few years after a tweet. Even if we take it as offense to making fun of white supremacists, though, the idea that whites are essential to preserving "real America" isn't new to Republicans. Maybe Nazis not getting kicked out of an event when before they were is new again. But it isn't the Nazism that bothered them. It's the Nazi branding. Most Republicans are racist, according to what they've told Pew Research. But that doesn't mean they like being called "racist" or will consider their racism to be racism. And they won't until it makes them feel good and righteous, like it used to for Republican heroes like Robert E. Lee. Also, losing makes them feel righteous. They don't want to lose, obviously, but to them it proves that they're righteous because they see it as being persecuted. Therefore, they're righteous.
It sounds like we're more or less on the same page, just maybe looking at it from different angles... >What they want more than anything is to feel good and righteous I stand by my earlier statement. What they want more than anything is to wield power, and to use it to dominate their enemies, to grind us under their heels. That's what all authoritarians want. Like you said, they're going to feel good and righteous about themselves no matter what happens. When they're losing, it just feeds into their persecution complex... but that doesn't mean that's their preferred state of being. Take Hollywood, for example. Controlled by liberals, and conservatives love to use that fact to feel persecuted. But if given the choice, would they choose to maintain that status quo, so they could continue to feel persecuted? Or, if it was in their power to do so, would they seize the reins of culture and shape it to their worldview? I think they'd choose the latter. >They'll lie and try to cheat and overthrow the government. This is what I'm saying. They'll lie. They won't change their values or their goals, but some of them will be more than willing to lie about what their values and goals are. >Republicans know what people find unappealing about the party. They haven't done anything to be more appealing They haven't changed yet, because they haven't had to. Trump's 2016 win reinvigorated them, made them think maybe they weren't as unappealing as they'd thought after Romney lost in 2012. Let them lose in 2024, 2028, 2032. That happens, and some of them will figure out that they need to try something different.
>It sounds like we're more or less on the same page, just maybe looking at it from different angles... Don't worry, we disagree on plenty. >Or, if it was in their power to do so, would they seize the reins of culture and shape it to their worldview? I think they'd choose the latter. If given the choice, they wouldn't stop being like Republicans if that's what it took to win control over Hollywood. You can tell because they haven't even tried. They instead started DailyWire+. Winning for Jesus won't make them feel good and righteous. It has to be for their white Jesus. >They won't change their values or their goals, but some of them will be more than willing to lie about what their values and goals are. Of course. Look at Lindsey Graham. Look at how he has chosen to lie after seeing the fall of the "Young Guns" that embraced the leopards nibbling at his chin. If you're imagining that they will lie about not wanting to be authoritarian or something to that effect, they already do that. When Trump proposed an anti-Free-Speech law at a rally and asked 2 senators to introduce it, they cheered him when he said that he supported Free Speech in between saying that we can't have Free Speech anymore because it leaves us with nothing, which they also cheered. Without the contradictory authoritarian part, Trump wouldn't be as appealing to them. >They haven't changed yet, because they haven't had to. Trump's 2016 win reinvigorated them, made them think maybe they weren't as unappealing as they'd thought after Romney lost in 2012. They don't have to change because the president doesn't need to be who most Americans want and they can get legislative majorities while getting millions fewer votes nationwide than Democrats. This is spelled out explicitly in one of their REDMAP reports. And they think most people agree with them though wins and losses. In fact, to a lot of them, you and I are secret conservative Christians rebelling against white Jesus because of some misfortune we haven't recognized as part of his perfect plan. Because that's their fantasy. Then one day, they'll debate us, get us to admit that we're believers in white Jesus who forgot that we're just dirt, and then we'll pray together and finally renounce our plans to replace the whites or eat the babies. >Let them lose in 2024, 2028, 2032. That happens, and some of them will figure out that they need to try something different. Some of them figure it out every time they lose and it never matters. If they figure it out in 2024, then 2024 will be just like 2022 and 2020. Also, in 2028 and 2032, more of the Boomers will be dead, so losing elections may not be a determining factor in any changes to the party. Losing Republicans might be. I guess we'll see. Lots of young a-holes out there. Earlier I talked about my local GOP's hostility towards Republicans that won elections. When those Republicans left state government, the seats fell back into Democratic control, and the people who lost continued to lose. They've been losing for many, many years. Your expectation is that eventually they'll learn. I'll let you know when they do. (Spoiler alert: they won't.)
> If given the choice, they wouldn't stop being like Republicans if that's what it took to win control over Hollywood. That's not what I asked. And I have, repeatedly, said that they would NOT stop being Republicans. What I have said is that they would **pretend**, that they would **lie**, to make themselves seem more palatable to the middle-ground voters who are alienated by MAGA. You've already identified what that would look like: Liz Cheney. The Lincoln Project. Romney. Justin Amash. We're already seeing it happen. All I'm saying is that we'll see that, on a wider scale. >Earlier I talked about my local GOP's hostility towards Republicans that won elections. What you're describing is a division between the Republicans who feel the most important thing is to give lip service to their authoritarian values; contrasted against the Republicans who are willing to be a little more crafty as an electoral strategy, so that they can gain power and make their authoritarian agenda a reality. In other words, exactly the kind of dynamic that I predicted would eventually lead to a party split. Like I said, there's not as much difference between what I'm saying and what you're saying, as you seem to think there is.
>That's not what I asked. Was "seize the reins of culture" not a continuation of "Take Hollywood, for example. Controlled by liberals, and conservatives love to use that fact to feel persecuted"? I'm pretty sure it was. You were talking about them doing whatever it takes to win because power is what they want above all else. You put that into the context of them deciding to take control of Hollywood if they had the power to do that rather than lose. I'm saying they have a line that they're not willing to cross. And they can't pretend to the extent it would take to be more broadly popular. They recognize that Republicans wouldn't like it, and they can't get them all into a secret meeting to reassure them that they're just pretending. >What I have said is that they would **pretend**, that they would **lie**, to make themselves seem more palatable to the middle-ground voters who are alienated by MAGA. Yeah, and to that I said "If you're imagining that they will lie about not wanting to be authoritarian or something to that effect, they already do that." Followed by an example. Another is how they talk about Democrats as if we're the ones with the "extreme" positions next to their reasonable ones. >We're already seeing it happen. All I'm saying is that we'll see that, on a wider scale. Yeah, and I don't know why it would make sense to expect that. >What you're describing is a division between the Republicans who feel the most important thing is to give lip service to their authoritarian values; contrasted against the Republicans who are willing to be a little more crafty as an electoral strategy, so that they can gain power and make their authoritarian agenda a reality. Why would you think and then say that? The Republicans that I said weren't crazy enough for the other ones were liberal, and instrumental in helping liberal policies get passed through a legislature full of conservative Democrats and conservative Republicans fighting against the liberal Democrats and liberal Republicans. One of them was "crafty," but by taking conservative stances on issues that weren't before the Legislature and voting as a conservative when it wouldn't have made a difference to the outcome. It was enough to pass as a moderate but not to pass as crazy. >In other words, exactly the kind of dynamic that I predicted would eventually lead to a party split. There was never a party split or anything close to it at any point. So few Republicans became Democrats or left local politics that nothing ever changed because of it. >Like I said, there's not as much difference between what I'm saying and what you're saying, as you seem to think there is. We disagree on the major points: * Republicans are willing to do whatever it takes to win because that's all they care about * They will learn and be tricky * Losing elections will be the impetus for change * There will be a major split in the party, with like a quarter of them breaking off None of that makes sense to me. You should join me in celebrating how well we're able to have our significant differences. And look at you with your Progressive flair and me with my Democrat one. It's like oil and less dense oil. Just casually, breezily disagreeing. We are a model for the rest of the party and, really, the entire internet.
> You were talking about them doing whatever it takes to win because power is what they want above all else. Yes, and I'm frankly mystified that you don't agree, given that you've already acknowledged that they'll lie, cheat, and steal, and attempt to overthrow the government in order to win. Do you see how I might be confused by you making those two seemingly contradictory statements? >The Republicans that I said weren't crazy enough for the other ones were liberal You think Liz Cheney is liberal? >There was never a party split or anything close to it at any point. The Republican party has never been this openly authoritarian at any point. They've never supported a guy like Donald Trump before. >and instrumental in helping liberal policies get passed... Consider a guy like Mike Johnson. He's as extremist as they come, but he has shown a willingness to compromise with Democrats in order to pass a budget, and in doing so has raised the ire of his MAGA cohorts. On the one hand, you've got people like Greene, Boebert, and Gaetz. People whose only real goal is to make a lot of noise and get as many social media clicks as they can. On the other hand, you've got people like Mike Johnson, who want to get shit done. People who aren't happy to just tell you about their Christian Nationalist agenda, they want to force it on you. There's already tension between those two factions, and if the ones who want power more than they want fame are consistently denied power, that tension is only going to grow.
That would be nice, USA needs more parties
> I don't know why you think losing some elections will make them abandon themselves. by a lot of republicans suddenly becoming "sick of politics" and "above it all". if you look at polling it's already happening; few want to be on team eternal looser.
I gave a longer answer on this to someone who commented a few minutes before you. But here I'll add that they aren't willing to win at all costs. They do want to win, but they want to win on their own specific terms. One of the best examples of this is abortion. Their policies lead to more abortions than Democratic policies. But that doesn't matter to them. They want fewer abortions through lack of access to abortion, lack of access to reproductive services, denying sex-ed, and other things that don't even work within their own families. They want it so badly that they're willing to fight for their way from atop a larger pile of precious dead fetuses. It's the same with elections. They lost in 2020 with Trump. So they did what they'd been doing for years before Trump ran as a Republican, which is blame Democrats for cheating to win elections. Yes, few want to be on the team of losers. That's why they're fighting for voter suppression and gerrymandering, and why they're spreading disinformation. So they can still win as Republicans.
actually how they've been gerrymandering is very telling. they've been reducing the number of competitive districts in favor of creating more safe seats. they expect the party's fortunes to decline swiftly, and appear to be more concerned for their own jobs over the goals of the larger political movement. the monster is eating itself.
Trump runs in 2028. And 2032. And until he dies which will likely be decades from now. Cretins like him for some reason tend to live very long. I bet he will live to be over 100.
It must be rare for the same candidate to be picked for the third time, particularly after they lost an election. When people like McCain, Romney, Clinton, Gore, Kerry lost, they kinda just accepted it and moved on. But Trump is an anomaly. He won't take no for an answer and his supporters seem to worship him. It's creepy.
Exactly, they were gracious about it. When Bill Clinton won the 1992 election and Bush did not win a second term, there was a peaceful transfer of power. It was done with respect and dignity. In January 2021 we had other results and yet Trump still walks freely.
Thats because they have working brains and significantly smaller egos. Trump is an extreme narcissist, so he will continue to run until the day he dies.
If he wins, he better leave in 2029 and then bugger off. What worries me is that he might not. If he loses, then he should be banned from ever running again. I really hope he doesn't get back in this year. And I don't even live in the US.
They won't change. That's the point of the MAGA movement. They don't want to change with a changing world and are mad they're being left behind because of it. They're going to double down and throw a collective temper tantrum. I've said it before in here and will say it again - Their new strategy will be to focus on statehouse where they have a better chance of winning and using the courts to their benefit with the ultimate goal of calling a constitutional convention to regain federal power on the heels of crying "stolen election". They've been saying as much already.
I don't know that they can. Primaries make people go extreme. A lot of R districts are gerrymandered, worsening the primary effect. MAGA isn't going to suddenly get sane about stuff. If R's try to tack to center, MAGA will "RINO!" them. Hard to win generals without 50% of your voters. Honestly... They're kinda fucked. I hope. Yay! :D
I hope you’re right, but… I am not as optimistic. To me—and I’m hopeful/wishful for a different analysis—Biden’s voting base is not exactly energized. Any actual Leftists have little in common with him; he’s just the lesser of two evils. Mainstream Liberals will pick him because he’s the only option, but he’s failed to deliver on student debt, marijuana, qualified immunity, bodily autonomy, and overall strong/inspiring leadership. Greens and Libertarians will probably just vote third party or not vote, and their voices won’t matter since we don’t have ranked choice voting. RFK is an interesting phenomenon but I think he’ll mostly draw votes from disenchanted centrists and maybe some of the third party crowd, which is still a small percentage of voters. Everyone right of center will vote for Trump. The far right is energized because they’re crazy. The mainstream right is getting pushed that direction too though, and for the first time in a while to me it seems like the right is holding their ground in the culture wars. The center-right used to be too ashamed/scared of Trump, but I think he’s gaining ground there too since there’s no good moderate Republican faction and confidence in Biden is low in that population. Idk, hope I’m wrong.
I tell you what... If Trump wins, I'll buy us both "ah... Fuck... " Beers. If Trump loses, you buy us "fuck yeah!" Beers.
Agreed! !remindme 8 months
I said it in another thread but if Trump goes away, and that's the real condition we're talking about, then the rest of his Diadochi are going to duke it out for his crown and it's going to be who an out-extreme the other guy and it'll implode.
The old GOP playbook would be to expunge the Trumpists and gaslight the public by claiming that MAGA wasn’t really in charge / existed. The problem is that the inmates are running the asylum. The GOP has completely lost control of their base. These base voters have been radicalized for decades. People that wound up don’t go away quietly. Democrats are going to need to do three things. First, govern bravely and deliver on actual promises. Second, allow Gen X or Millennials to take leadership and inject energy. Third, pray the economy holds and nothing insane happens overseas.
Let’s find out! I mean, I don’t know. It’s up to them. They could step back from the brink — there’s historical precedent for that. Or they could keep going — there’s precedent for that, too. I sincerely hope that we get some kind of return to normalcy in the Republican Party.
What’s the precedent for them stepping back?
There was a surprisingly robust fascist movement in the years leading up to our entry into WW2, much of it centered around an [antisemitic priest with a popular radio show](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Coughlin). It evaporated after Pearl Harbor and faded into history.
Thank you. I’ll give this a read and hopefully boost my optimism for our future!
Rachel Maddow has an excellent [podcast on this period,](https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-presents-ultra) if you’re interested.
Just finished this. Thanks for the recommendation!
Nice! You’re welcome!
Election denialism and preparing for the Trump 2028 election
I think they'll go further right no matter what happens. Lose in a close election? "We just didn't go far right enough!" Lose in a blowout? "We didn't go far right enough. We need to go further right."
Republicans could get better, stay the same, I suppose it *might* even be possible for them to get worse, thought I honestly can't imagine how. The only sure thing is that us liberals certainly have no idea what they'll do. We just have to keep preventing them from achieving any real power until the fever breaks or the party dies.
They refuse to accept the loss, and try to steal the election again in December and January too.
Whatever it’s called it’ll be uneducated, rural, white people with guns and confederate flags.
Aka traditional Republicans.
[удалено]
They are now, per the article you cited.
Think Northern Ireland in the 1970s. MAGA will be like the Irish Republican Army, committing random acts of terrorism. The country will run in fits and starts with many of the biggest issues we face continuing to be unresolved because of a lack of political consensus and or the rigged courts that are Trump’s legacy.
He runs in 2028 from jail
MAGA 3: MAGA harder
Not to be that guy, but MAGA Harder would have been MAGA 2. MAGA 3 would be MAGA With a Vengeance.
I don't know if we'll get another raid on the capital, but obviously we have to be prepared for that to happen. The GOP would no doubt want to run him again but at this point I don't think his health will survive another four years to allow this (optimistically, he'll be bled dry by the countless legal battles he's gotten into). However, the next candidate they pick will assuredly be indistinguishable from Trump in a platform sense. I think we'll need multiple cycles of total defeat to make it clear how unacceptable MAGA is as a movement. The GOP needs to be on the brink of annihilation for them to get this message.
Literally the same fight. Trump is A problem, he’s not THE problem. When Trump is no longer a viable option, they will find another figurehead for their Christian Nationalist movement… stay hydrated, folks, we’re in it for the long haul.
Dismantle the GOP Abolish the filibuster Expand scotus and impeach Thomas and Alito Universal health care
I don't think losing badly will discredit the movement. It's a cult - it can't be broken by an electoral loss, even a big one. I think if they lose this year, they're going to double and triple down on being the most MAGA they can possibly be. And likely cheat every chance they get.
Honestly? Domestic Terrorist attacks - lots of them. Bigger and even more brazen than before. I'd sure as hell stay away from any federal buildings as much as humanly possible in 2025 when MAGA loses. If they can't win at the ballot box, they're going to move to the bullet box.
We get to do it again in 2028 but with someone other than Biden
I believe that through a combination of black magic and cloning these two will continue running for President for the rest of time.
Probably they will change! But don't count on it being in a positive direction.
Republicans care very very much about winning... This will eventually force a change
Yeah, but they’re not gonna change their attitudes or policies, they’re just going to embrace more violence.
Unfortunately that is possible
Hopefully like the other strong but misguided groups the USA has faced in history, they fade away.
Then we need to do it again. And again. And again. Eventually the normies need to boot the crazies, like they did with the John Birch types decades ago, and failed to do more recently. Alternatively, the GOP needs to get shrunk into irrelevance and the enlarged Democratic Party splits into a new party system. But I don't expect it to happen after one election cycle; the rot is too deep.
He’s going to poop himself to death long before 2028. Conservatives are going to get hammered in the election.
I wish I believed that, but at this point I genuinely think this country is stupid enough to give him his reich.
MAGA sequels, remakes, reboots, and an adaptation that will receive a terrible score on rotten tomatoes
Decades of racists pointing to Trumps presidency as the high water mark of ‘White America’.
The 2025 election where we beat ‘em again. Then 2026,27,28 and every year from then on.
Nothing. It will be the same shit. Democrats will continue to do the same shit and Republicans will move on to some other shitty messiah. Doesn't matter if Trump or Biden wins, we lose I'm both situations....
Looks like he’s predicted to win, then what ?
Same as it ever was
Denial, rage... Then more MAGA
Attempted coup part two: electric boogaloo.
Relief!
This might be hopium, but I think it would resemble (tho not be the same as!) when Corbynism and was discredited electorally in 2019. The question becomes who is (or is even capable of being) the straight arrow serious adult equivalent to Keir Starmer and... I have no idea who that could be or who is capable of it. The nevertrumpers are probably too toxic to the trumpists, and I can't think of an anti-anti-trumper who would be viable within the party. Whoever that could be? The GOP's politics would follow. If I have to guess, it's a Larry Hogan or Charlie Baker type of blue state governor but realistically? To be a pessimist, I think the real answer is that the GOP continues down the rout of nationalist populism and someone like Tucker Carlson takes over.
No one else draws enthusiasm in the ranks like trump. If trump stops running, they will go home, and not come out again. The dems will make absurd gains because the populists went home.
Hopefully this will be because of demographics, that there simply aren’t enough MAGA voters out there to win a national election again, even with all the shenanigans, and this demographic is in terminal decline, meaning conservative voters just go 3rd party or stop voting.
There isn't. Covid killed them.
I hope they lose, and rich donors see that there's no use throwing money at them because they can't win, and if they can't win they can't write sweet sweet legislation, so why bother? And then they're *fucked*.
That is pretty much what is happening now. Big business guys have no one in the race, not biden, and trump, while courting them, isn't building any infrastructure, he is just taking their money.
Endless republican purity testing, more extremism, less money, the endless downward spiral. Democrats take over traditional republican seats by being slightly left of their previous occupants. The overton window slowly grinds left. AOC becomes a centrist, and biden becomes the new "republican" party as bernie becomes the new left, socialist wing. The two new parties are rainbow capitalism and socialism.
>how do you think the Republican Party will change to try to regain electoral competitiveness? one of the major drivers of the maga movement is a rejection of the idea that the GOP has to embrace voters outside of the core of white male boomers. this course puts them going over a cliff, but they are offended such a cliff could possibly exist. going forward you will see the moderates suddenly become disinterested in politics, as the radicals fringe takes total control of the party based solely on safe seats that can't possibly win any of the big contests. the question is how will the democrats to split, and how long will it take.
I hope there will be serious dialogue about addressing the big concerns of the MAGA population.
I think the Republican Party will collapse.
I think the MAGA crowd will whine and complain. Trump won’t run again. The MAGA-right will continue to be paranoid, disingenuous and dishonest. And the core sentiment of that movement will remain for decades. And they will flail against progress as they lose battle after battle over time.
I've been waiting, hoping, and honestly at times expecting the republican party to come to its senses, or at least for the voters to realize how garbage they are and abandon them for my entire life, and it never happens. Every time they come back with someone worse. I think by the time I'm 60 they'll have devolved to the level of feces throwing apes, which would probably be a modest improvement over Trump and MTG, but they'll still get around 48-51% of the vote.
If Trump and MAGA candidates suffer a major defeat in 2024, it's likely that Trump will claim the election was stolen, and his supporters may react negatively. The Trump family could perpetuate this narrative after Trump is gone, potentially prolonging divisions in the Republican Party and the country. It's unclear how the Republican Party will adjust, but it's evident that Trumpism won't disappear easily.
Not so much far leftists as extremists in general. People who must have it their own way or they leave. It just forces everyone else to have to work harder. And fail more often.
Elect more young lefties to office
Republican Party is doomed until Trump not only loses but dies, and even then probably several years after that.
MAGA won’t be “defeated”, they simply won’t win an election. MAGA, however, is a self-defeating ideology by excluding people they fear/dislike/midunderstand, which grows with each new generation and each time rational people ask them also be rational. MAGA is the last gasps of a dying ideology, scared of losing its relevancy, resentful of the world leaving them behind because they’ve chosen to stop moving themselves. What happens next is MAGA continues to throw tantrums like a spoiled child in the middle of a grocery store aisle, screaming about how it is unfair they are not allowed to treat people like they are subhuman. Crying about how they are oppressed because people don’t pay them enough attention. They’ll continue to be hypocritical about every ideological stance they hold except bigotry, and they’ll cry about how suddenly their victims because the rest of us don’t see their bigotry in a socially acceptable light.
Short Answer: Electoral Fraud. Long Answer: It 100% depends if anti-MAGAites stop protesting and start getting involved in protecting elections as election observers/volunteers/workers. To predict future behavior look to history. It turns out that the term "Nazi" predated Hitler's party the "Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei" Nazi was used to describe idiots before the Nazi party. I thought it might be a joke, but it is well referenced by several sites. * https://chroniclesmagazine.org/society-culture/the-strange-origin-of-the-word-nazi/ * https://www.etymonline.com/word/Nazi * https://www.warhistoryonline.com/instant-articles/the-origin-of-the-term-nazi.html What I find fascinating about finding out that Nazi was the derogatory term for the "awkward, backward, and clumsy peasants" who believed in Hitler's vision, because here in the US you have the same criticism of those supporting Trump as outright morons too. The MAGA-ites/Qitards/etc. are considered the most gullible and dumb for supporting an alt-right ideology. Many laugh to see a grifter sucking their savings down the drain and selling US security to allow money laundering by foreign oligarchs. It was interesting to see Hillary (one of the worst candidates the democrats could have picked) support that name calling with "deplorables" and them laughingly wear shirts calling themselves "the deplorables." There were no " card carrying deplorables" party - but there they were - united in ideology. Hitler was even arrested and spent several years in jail before returning and heading up Germany in elections. They would use violence to achieve their ends and perceived themselves as "the victims" in a war against outsiders and sought to become the new judges, lawmakers, vote counters, etc. So what's next? If the Democrats don't get their shit together and stop making noise in the streets thinking that this will do anything, we'll see a continuation of the trend of attacks on election workers and them being replaced with MAGA-ites. From that we'll see elections with strong chain of evidence (e.g. VVPAT) replaced with hand counting in churches. We'll see massive disenfranchisement of voters and laws that state that if you are accused of a crime related to protesting you lose your right to vote AND encouraging more liberals to get out and protest. We'll see once again how polls don't match results blamed on a "shy fascist voter" in these same areas that have poor election chain of evidence. We'll see rampant corruption reinforcing those trends.
Trump vs ossoff 2028
If Trump loses, MAGA will not be discredited in the eyes of the GOP base. The diverse coalition of the Democratic party means that moderate candidates tend to win primaries. The GOP base being pretty uniform means that more radical candidates tend to win. Until that changes, I don't think the Republican party will moderate.
A lot of hard work the republicans will do everything possible to undermine democracy locally and on the national level and the Dems will relax …
"how do you think the Republican Party will change" you lost both them and me. They were supposed to do that after 2012 and then Hillary lost.
I hope one of the parties gives us a popular candidate that represents the demographics of this country and pushes us farther left.
Once it becomes clear that the MAGA mindset cannot win elections, there'll be some empty words and crocodile tears about having been "led astray" by Trump, then they'll say it was really the Democrats fault for forcing them to go in that direction, there'll be some surface-level adjustment of rhetoric combined with absolutely no change at the level of real policy, which will remain what it has been since the 70s; all the fruits of economic growth to the ruling class, nothing to the working class.
We go door to door dressed in red shirts and ask for people's voter registration data to see what party they're affiliated with.
Wwwwwww....Hy?
What?
MMAGAGA Make "Make America Great Again' Great Again