Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Can the NeverTrumps Save the Republican Party–The Math
I regard as sincere the NeverTrumps strategy to oppose Trump in order to save the Republican Party and conservatism. But will opposing Trump save the Party? What are the merits of this strategy? Here at Ricochet, the discussion of this topic is a well trodden path but rhetorical discussion is subjective and never definitive. So where has it gotten us? The mathematics of the situation may offer a better analysis.
The Republican Primary Electorate by the Numbers
Revisiting the presidential primary is insightful. Here is the confounding math: Trump won 1,441 delegates (the blue area at right) with Cruz a distant second at 551. A 2.6 to 1 preference for Trump. The Republican leadership despised both these candidates, yet together they garnered 81% of the Republican delegates. The establishment’s most favored candidate (Jeb) got 4 (not a typo, that’s four!) delegates or a startlingly mere 0.16 percent of the delegates. Even Ben Carson got more delegates (7) and three times more popular votes than Jeb. I believe the leadership’s thoughts throughout this time of opposition to Trump and Cruz were to safeguard the party, but the math reveals the result. At the end of the primaries, the leadership’s control as expressed in delegates for their candidate was 1/6 of one percent with the complete loss of control of 81+% (don’t forget Carly and Ben) of the delegates. If you pretend the leadership had no horse in the race and thus controlled all votes for all other traditional Republican candidates, then their influence could garner less than 14% of the delegates.
Cruz’s 25.1 percent of the popular primary vote added to Trump’s 44.9 percent, means 70 percent of Republican primary voters intentionally voted for candidates unacceptable to the Republican leadership. Only 26 percent of the popular vote went to other six traditional Republican candidates. These statistics should awaken the dead, but did the leadership awaken? In reviewing these statistics, the merits of the leadership’s obstructionist strategy during the primaries towards Trump and Cruz is clear. It did not save the party from Trump and Cruz, and may have had the opposite effect.
Side-note: A Quick Observation on the Origin of Electorate Numbers
Could it be that the Republican leadership nurtured and created these rebel voters in two significant ways? By the party’s own example, they trained them to not prioritize conservative values and then stoked their anger and resentment when they ignored the electorate’s clear will to fight the Left – particularly after ignoring this mandate when the electorate gave Republicans both houses in the 2014 landslide Congressional elections. If so, Trump would be the conspicuous expression and natural outcome of Republican tutelage.
The Republican Officials by the Numbers
Since the primaries, the elected Republican officials who are directly accountable to these indignant voters, have largely yielded to the voter’s choice. On the day of this writing, even Cruz has now endorsed Trump. At present Trump has 210 current US Congressional endorsements. For comparison Hillary Clinton has 225 current US Congressional endorsements. Also since the primaries, a number of conservative intellectuals have voiced strong if not dire warnings to Republican leadership and NeverTrumps to not again try to undermine the electorate’s choice. But have the leadership and party functionaries heard these voices? In reviewing these statistics, the merits of the leadership’s continued obstructionist strategy towards Trump leading up to the convention is clear. It did not save the party from Trump becoming the Republican nominee.
Successful Rebellions by the Numbers
History is replete with examples of when 10 to 20 percent of a population are committed to a goal with a mere one third of the population being sympathetic – they are able to impose revolution and successfully win civil wars against authorities (the “one third” is often attributed to John Adam’s assessment of the number of colonists in favor of the American Revolution).
Polling
by Gallup in May showed two thirds (64 percent) of “Republicans and Republican Leaners” are favorable to Trump. A confirming poll by NBC, also in May, asked Republicans “Who do you trust more to lead the Republican Party?” 58 percent of Republicans said Trump, only 39 percent said Ryan. Hillary Clinton’s favorability among Democrats is half that of Trump’s with Republicans. The Democrats and Republicans are quite different on this point.
So unique to Republicans is the pairing of broad Republican voter support of Trump with the leadership’s open disdain of Trump. And since this battle is inside the Republican party, Trump’s favorability with independents and Democrats are irrelevant (please don’t confuse the analysis and go there). The math indicates that Trump’s intra-party support is double the successful-rebellion-threshold.
What Do All the Numbers Indicate?
The Electorate
- Only 14 to 26 percent of the party electorate will vote for traditional party candidates, with the Republican leadership having effective control of only a fraction of that number.
- Based on May polling, 58 percent openly reject the party leadership in favor of Trump.
- To remove any objection to the accuracy of those numbers, let’s assume they are 25 percent off and give all the beneficial adjustments to Republican leadership. Those more favorable calculations are: only 18 to 33 percent of the party electorate will vote for traditional party candidates. 44 percent favor Trump over the party leadership.
- Even with adjustments, the pro-Trump faction still dominates and already controls the party.
The Republican Officials
- Trump has 210 current US Congressional endorsements which is nearly on par with Hillary Clinton’s 225 current US Congressional endorsements.
- Using current US Congressional endorsements as a proxy to gauge elected Republicans support for Trump – Trump has no deficit in elected Republican support
Conclusion–The Merits of the NeverTrump Strategy
The anti-Trump sentiment of the Republican party leadership is at odds with both the Republican electorate and Republican elected officials. The NeverTrumps, who are the tip of the sword for this strategy, have only fellow Republican and conservative blood on the sword.
Post-November, Scenario 1: If Trump wins, the Republican leadership will have again be shown to have pursued an ineffective strategy at odds with the electorate and their own elected officials. The party will continue likely as divided as at present.
Post-November, Scenario 2: If Trump loses, especially if by a close margin, the Republican leadership and Republican NeverTrumps will be seen as having sabotaged their own candidate and purposely enabled the Left’s win. The repercussions would likely be a intra-party war and due to the dominant Trump support within both the electorate and elected officials, the math would indicate a crippling defeat for the Republican leadership and brand. Then those of lesser foresight who concocted schemes of winning by losing, will lose not just the election, but the party they professed to protect. Rhetoric is the art of persuasion, but it cannot overcome the reality of the math. So put rhetoric aside to look at the mathematical reality, because reality always trumps rhetoric.
Postscript: There is a strategy for the party to use a Trump win to strengthen the party and conservative values by transferring Trump support back to the Party. But that is for another day.
Published in Politics
No. But the Never Trumpers might be able to save Hillary and the Democrats.
May I ask why you used delegate totals rather raw votes?
Both are used. Here are the delegates counts:
Here is the popular vote totals:
Fantastic take and analysis. On an emotional note this is quite obvious to me. Conservatism in its current iteration failed miserably beyond a few rear guard attacks.
A close loss by Trump is the kiss of death for the GOP and what comes after will marginalize the never trump crowd going forward.
Thanks for the answer and I apologize for the stupid question. My shiny object-oriented mind went right to the pie chart.
The NeverTrumpers are not the Republican leadership. All the leadership and party establishment is with him. The NeverTrumpers, at least those in the public sphere are limited to various conservative writers and intellectuals and a few actual politicians. None of these people prior to the primary were ever in any kind of “leadership” roll for the Republican Party.
For most nevertrumpers it’s not about party but about a path for conservatism..
I think your belief is not widely held nor correct. According to this history of the NeverTrump movement, the key people and organizations are directly tied to Republican leadership. In January a former Romney aide founded Our Principles PAC and the Republican organization Club for Growth, spent $13 million and $11 million respectively on Trump attack ads. In February, one of the original NeverTrumpers, Karl Rove, spoke about the need to stop Trump. Also in February, after Trump won the New Hampshire and South Carolina primaries, Republican leaders called for the party to unite around a single leader to stop Trump’s nomination. In March Mitt Romney and adviser Alex Castellanos called for a “negative ad blitz” against Trump. After Trump secured enough delegates for the nomination, in June some Republican delegates founded Delegates Unbound, to promote the idea that delegates are not bound (to Trump). The most prominent NeverTrumpers are all Republican establishment: Eric Erickson (former editor-in-chief of RedState), William Kristol, Mike Murphy (Jeb Bush confidant and he ran Jeb’s PAC Right to Rise), Stuart Stevens (Rommey strategist), Rick Wilson (GOP Consultant), etc., and etc…
When both the electorate and Republican party are not committed to conservatism, please elaborate a path to conservatism where the key is stopping Trump.
By your analysis the most influential and important Republican President, the one that everyone references and wants to be like is Richard Nixon of course. Nixon by the numbers controlled way more of the party vote totals and delegates then Trump did. Not only that but when National Review refused to endorse him and backed his impeachment and declared him unconservative they were in a very, very lonely place. Their subscription rates fell to the point where the magazine nearly folded. By the math Nixon should the defining President of the Republican party and the Conservative movement but he is not. Do you find that odd?
You also confuse yourself by making the Cruz support and Trump support one faction. There were plenty of nevertrumpers and reluctant Trumpers voting for Cruz. Cruz was never unacceptable to the Conservative wing of the party and Conservative nevertrumpers should not be identified with the Establishment Republicans whatever that is. This also throws your math off.
If Trump loses by a little or lot Nevertrumpers will be to blame by ardent Trump supporters. What it will take to unify the party is a successful Conservative Candidate that unifies support behind him. There are Candidates that can do that. Cruz is positioning himself to do that.
The Trump coalition is not a stable one and it does not directly over lap with the people that backed Cruz. Finally do you think that the Trump coalition will hold firm in the face of a failed Trump presidency? If Trump is an unprepared and instinctively liberal as Nevertrumpers believe you think the Trump coalition stick with him? Most Trump supporters have claimed that if he is as liberal as President as he has been in life they will abandon and oppose him. What will your math tell us then?
So you put some good work in here and the numbers are interesting to look it but they tell far less then you think they do and your analysis of them is off.
Not sure these equate. Nixon was a traditional Republican candidate with GOP support.
You are missing the point. One must total both Cruz and Trump to gauge the anti-establishment vote (remember Cruz was the anti-Washington Cartel candidate).
The electorate is not conservative, neither is the party. Dream on.
Let’s review your premises that are needed to make you conclusion valid.
The path would be to educate the electorate on what are conservative principles. How is that not made harder with a trump administration?
Would not Nevertrumpers embrace this blame? If no, then you certainly have confused me. Nevertrumpers are seeking for Trump not to be POTUS, am I right?
I am all for educating the electorate. But the Republican party and post-Reagan Republican presidents have made teaching conservatism hard. I referred to their hypocritical tutelage in my post. They claimed the conservative label but then acted and governed in contradiction to the principles of conservatism. They could not critique their guy because they had to support their guy. Every should know that Trump is not a conservative so we can stop the charade and are finally free to start teaching conservatism. You see, Trump will have two opposition parties as president. This is hugely under appreciated and will be of great benefit in constraining Trump and redefining the Republican party. It will be like having three parties.
If Trump wins, the Republican party, conservative media, & conservative pundits can stop the charade that their candidate is conservative. They will have a historic opportunity to both redefine themselves as different than president Trump & start talking about real conservatism.
By the way, Trump is neither liberal nor conservative, his is not an ideologue at all, but is a pragmatist / opportunist. His values are centered around what succeeds.
But hasn’t he said he favors school choice. If this were in place widely, a better chance to teach the founding principles and conservatism. Not to mention teaching the young how to think, not what to think.
I agree with some of what you said in this post. The last bit is off. And while he isnt liberal or conservative, he looks to goverment (and himself) as the entities that can solve the problems.
Trump has adopted a lot of common sense policies (the good side of pragmatism). There is a lot of overlap between common sense and conservatism.
I won’t quarrel with this. I do think that Trump might be actually able to identity a real problem and move government to try to solve it rather than expending enormous resources on things that progressives see as obstacles to having things their way and pretending they were problems government was needed to solve.
Agreed. That is because he doesn’t have a political philosophy to guide him. That is not due to a lack of intelligence. He is extremely smart. That is why you must grant him some mental framework such as pragmatism. And not be tempted to give in to phrasing that satisfies your dislike for him. Some people are not brain wired to seek meta-narratives or philosophies. I have listened carefully to his statements going back over his entire adult life. The consistent theme he speaks of and seeks is to succeed. I believe it is his principal moral value system, thus my classification of him as a pragmatist. I believe he will do what is necessary to succeed. That is not to say that he is heartless, but pragmatists can be pretty rough.
Then why should conservatives support the party?
To restate, you are asking why conservatives support the Republican Party if the party is not conservative? If there was another option, they shouldn’t. But we only have two parties which requires the application of the Buckley rule as applied to political parties: Support the rightwardmost viable party. And when we only have two candidates it is also the reason conservatives should support Trump: Support the rightwardmost viable candidate.
So, after November, conservatives should abandon the Republican Party and start a new one?
I’m cool with that, see my recent post here. However, I think we should drop the “conservative” label and but keep all the conservative principles. I suggested the “American Party.” When we do this, I want to subvert the Left’s control of the language and reclaim their terms for our use. Mostly to give the words their original meanings again. That would pull in all the millennials since they been trained to like certain words and terms without really knowing the content. Subversive isn’t it.
Very good post. As a new voter just entering political awareness (while not daring to use the “speaking as” approach but just as me), I have not embraced “conservatism” or become entrenched in the GOP.
I would rather see a real libertarian classical liberal party. Do you think we might get that as a response to the failure of Trump and the GOP?
To be clear, I support Trump because I think he will use that pragmatic if a-meta-political thinking to do a very few good things for this country.
So for me, Trump will likely be a failure just as the GOP is a failure to do what conservatives should have done long ago, fight the progressive and big government agendas. However, I would not characterize the NeverTrump movement as one I want anything to do with. The fatalistic idea that they couldn’t compromise with Trump to work on their ideas since they are a minority in current politics is deeply flawed in my view.
So, I view this as a grand opportunity to redefine what the coalition against big government and progressivism looks like as @wiley said,
I view the political spectrum as more than 2 parties. I will continue to vote GOP as long as it is the best coalition, but I will support whichever party is best outside of the voting booth.
I prefer classical liberal, but I’m not tied to the title.
It will likely happen. Trump is intent is destroying the Republican Party, and he has been successful.
Regardless, I am finished with the Republican Party. They have forever lost the automatic preference I have historically given them.
Yeah! We are on the same team. I hope we can start a new movement, and I am already making plans.
Yes please! This is also what I am looking for. I do want GOP to be in power while we do this change in order to protect ourselves from the radical left.
Its also great since I had missed your previous post and a while back had also started on a “new American manifesto” to describe my political beliefs.
I would like to ask if you want just one party. I think it would be great to have 4 or more major parties that would have to form coalitions in order to show everyone that they are never a true majority. Government is based on compromise. We, even though we know we are more right than everyone else, still have to compromise with others, even though they are people with terrible ideas. :)
Also, I agree with your @wiley idea that conservatives should not support the GOP there was a better viable party. I am in exactly the same boat as an independent.
We are agreeing so much tonight that I hate to bring this up since we are on a roll… but…
It is as clear as day that the trouble the Republican Party is in, is completely self inflicted. Trump may be the catalyst, but he was not the cause. The Republican Party has forsaken their principles, they look down on us commoners, then they ignore their electorate, and are focused on maintaining their little power structures.
I don’t think Trump is the cause, but I still think he is taking advantage of the existing dissension to destroy the party, possibly as a false flag operation. Trump clearly has more hatred towards Republicans than Democrats.
Exactly. Because we have only two parties, we have two monopolies. Just as competition works so well in the private sector – it would do the same magic for political parties. Let’s do it! Where do we start? Oh yeah, elect a person who is not an ideologue who is really not in either party, so we can for the first time ever(?) have neither party controlling the presidency.