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
I would add this. No one knew Reagan was around either in 1976 to 1980. People thought his time had passed and his chance gone. No one really knew how good he was or that he was a lock to win the nomination or the Presidency or how good a job he would do. We wrongly think back to the time and believe that everyone knew Reagan was awesome. People then did not know that. There was nothing that guaranteed a Reagan victory. In 1977 you would have written something like, “So you hope in Reagan he is multiple time loser and so old his time is past. Dream on about him saving you.”
Well yes, I agree they hate the GPOe. But they hate the Democrats more. Their dislike of the GOP is mostly because they would not stop the Democrats. That’s why these people have given up on political parties and politicians and want a businessman.
“There you go again.” Trump is not the subject of this post (not directly). Trump bashing is not the best response to this post. As I said in my first paragraph:
You asked me directly between Trump and Hillary who did I chose. I answered your question.
I think differently. Trump exposed the fact that there are two major groups in the Republican Party, big-government central planners and classical liberals. Trump represented the big government central planners in the primary, the Buchanan wing. That appears to be about 30-40% of the party and growing.
The big government central planners want government to do more, not less. They don’t want politicians to stop big government, they want them to grow big government.
They are tired of politicians that support limited government, so they will vote for anyone, politician or not, that promises to make government bigger to benefit them.
The Republican Party can no longer serve both these groups, so it will have to split in two.
OK then, I apologize.
Perhaps the NeverTrumps can be divided into 2 groups. In my mind, one group would be like many of those commenting here who sincerely hold that Trump is neither conservative nor Republican in any meaningful sense and the Party will be lost if he is elected. The other sub-group might be those Republicans of recent tradition, supporters of national Republican leadership, many of whom are frequently referred to as RINO’s, and who have successfully controlled who has been nominated until this cycle. Your numbers show that the electorate is not with this leadership faction and, during the course of Trump’s ascendency, he has won large numbers of elected Republicans to his camp. Mike Lee and Jeb Bush might exemplify these two camps. The Republican voter majority is in neither at this time. Maybe the Party is lost and maybe it is not, but it certainly is not and will not likely be in the near future what either faction of NeverTrumps would prefer.
From the beginning of the Republican primaries I was a staunch Cruz supporter because I am more concerned about losing our Constitution-based governance than about disruption in the Republican Party. I had Trump about last on my preferences but the time between say the Indiana primary and the present has caused me to look at my initial view of Trump as uninformed. Many like me have thought for some time the country was headed in the same direction regardless of which party held the levers of power, just that Democrats would arrive at their goal sooner. So I came to view Trump as a true advocate for America who said ‘something is wrong here and it has to change’ so he entered the race. He is a boorish New Yorker, not a politician nor an ideologue and that may explain much about his demeanor as well as his weak grasp of numerous issues and his flirtations with both parties in the past. My hope is that Trump, with good advisors, will be able to discern some of the things that are wrong with America and generate some momentum for change in the right direction. I have thought myself a reluctant Trump supporter, but as time goes by and I see clearly the alternative, my reluctance is dissipating.
Bingo, Wiley. Very nice attempt to analyze the current meme of nevertrumpers who are trying to defeat Trump and then taking offense at being held responsible if Trump loses. BTW, not taking responsibility for ones actions…not very conservative.
But you are exactly correct in that Trump is neither Republican nor Democrat at heart. He is not an ideologue. He is a businessman who has spent his life building things, setting goals, overcoming problems, and achieving, not always successfully, for sure, but by far, mostly successfully. In politics it is difficult to wrap ones head around an individual who doesn’t think nor behave like a politician.
Well said. Yes, we are on the same mental path. The only variation: I started with Scott Walker, then Cruz. Trump is not evil, racist or bigoted.
Nice to know we have new voters with solid feet on the ground good sense and judgment like yourself.
I have no idea why you say this.
I heartily agree (though I was Walker, Fiorina, then Cruz).
I can’t figure it out either.
How is any of the above knowable? Trumps coalition is only stable if he both wins and delivers. Not sure if that 80% of Cruz supporters support Trump, or just oppose Hillary. And how do you define the success or failure of Trumps presidency?
No. 3. is future, so we will skip trying to prove or disprove that one.
No. 1 – Stability of Trumps Coalition – Trump has been ravaged by the mainstream media, conservative media (National Review for example), the Democrats, and even the Republican establishment. He had zero support from established institutions or parties until near the end of the primaries. Yet, his support only gets stronger and more committed. He now has the support of the Republican electorate and elected Republican officials. The loyalty and strength of his supporters has been tested beyond any other candidate. It is rock solid.
No. 2 – Probably 80+% of Cruz’s supporters are now Trumps. You were right to question me on this. I could not quickly find any current article with a breakdown. The percentage is my personal estimate, but that is not proof. Since Cruz has endorsed Trump this week, hopefully we will get some research on this topic.
The key to understanding what happened this year is the fact that the Republicans won a landslide in the Congressional elections in 2014 and took both houses of Congress. They promised to use the power of the purse against the Obama administration, and they reneged on that promise. In the process, they alienated the party’s base. A majority of Republicans rejected every office-holder but Cruz. In a time when people are really upset about what is going on and the opposition party has secured a landslide, why would the leaders of that party opt to wave a white flag? Without a willingness to make use of the power of the purse, as Barack Obama has demonstrated, the legislative power does not matter at all.
Exactly correct. This is the final straw that precipitated the rebellion of the Republican base.
I just find it interesting that many people seem to have gone to Cruz as not their favorite candidate anyways. Some have referenced Cruz as the good candidate that everyone should have voted for, but it seems to me that Cruz’s support was also a lot of people who had their favorite drop out early. This goes back to who had the most stable support. Do I dare say the Trump had the most stable support of all. He seemed to get people who never left just because he was a little down in the polls.
I beg to disagree. I think there many parts of the Republican party. Conservative Small Government. Constituitonalists. Conservative big government. Classical Liberal. Libertarian. Libertarian Classical Liberal (me). NeoCons. And I am sure a variety of much more nuanced positions.
To attempt to place all rational political people in just 2 groups within the anti-progressive coalition is foolish. Only with left’s identity politics would that work.
Let’s assume this is correct (it may well be). Even so, I think you’re making a logical error about the remaining NeverTrumps. National Review, to take the most obvious example, endorsed Ted Cruz despite — if I’m reading you correctly — being one of the foci of the wicked GOPe.
Moreover, many people — myself included — voted for establishment-friendly candidates but 1. Would have had no problem voting for Cruz but 2. Still find Trump unacceptable.
Shorter version: While clearly an important part of this election, I do not think the establishment/outsider breakdown explains this as well as you suggest. For it to have worked, you would have to presume that a #NeverCruz movement would look very similar to the #NeverTrump.
I can explain my reasoning with respect to Buckley’s admonition to support the most rightward viable candidate:
Before any primaries, I looked at how well Walker crushed the left as governor of a blue state, particularly his success corralling public sector unions. Given his executive experience, rightward record of achievement, and history of nation-wide fundraising, he seemed to fit the bill. I considered Cruz at that time, but his public negatives were high — insurmountably so, I thought.
After Walker’s exit (premature in my opinion), I dithered a bit until Carly’s wonderful performance in the first undercard debate. A closer look followed. Her executive experience (bolstered by former business adversaries’ endorsements), staunch pro-life stance, and her willingness to go after Hillary, all combined to solidify my opinion. Especially the last bit.
By the time Carly bowed out, my initial assessment of Cruz as non-viable was coming into question, as there was considerable primary success and further poll movement his way. I have had a high opinion of Cruz for a long time, and especially appreciated his successful sabotage of the Gang of Eight. (I am still ticked at Rubio for his betrayal of his Senate campaign promise.) With viability demonstrated, Cruz rose to the top of my list. And that’s where I ended up for Georgia’s primary: Cruz.
And in my case, as an example, it’s not even about saving the Republican Party. I haven’t been a Republican for around a couple decades now and I wasn’t all that impressed with the candidates that survived the early stages of the primary process. I’ve voted for their candidates more often than not during general elections and I’ve always voted for the GOP’s candidate for presidential elections. However, this time the GOP primary voters rallied as a team and finally came up with a candidate that even I couldn’t vote for in the end.
I’m more than ready for the two party system to come to an end since it’s been a disaster for the country during the last half century or so.
Leaving the ballot item blank this time around isn’t anything for me other than a reflection of the fact that the two political parties managed to come up with a pair of candidates that I find so manifestly unqualified that even I can’t find a way to rationalize voting for them and I managed to talk myself into voting for McCain.
Yes, good response. I hope I did not seem to attack anyone personally or even their logic. Your analysis does seem spot on. I was in part responding to:
and all that followed.
So my point was not about the logic of all the people who changed candidates, it was that Trump seems to have a larger dedicated stable following to his policies compared to candidates like Cruz. BTW, I completely respect the idea that you would change who you support in order to get the best viable one into office. That is just common sense.
I hope you will forgive me for any assumptions or over simplifications of your logic/ideas when I quoted you. I just wanted to show an example that was at hand.
Thanks for your explanation. Since the phenomenon is too fresh to study, anectodatal inpressions of trends have to suffice. We are living in interesting times, and their are plenty of things taking place that will require time and distance to fully understand.
No problem, and no personal attack assumed. I just thought I’d explain this greybeard’s electoral thought processes to a self-professed newbie. (-:
The Venn diagram is messy here, as reality always is. There are several groups, but to make my post short and readable I must favor explanatory clarity if it is still generally accurate, vesus including the full list of clarifications. So let’s make some clarifications now. My above percentage guess infers that up to 20% of Cruz supporters may be NeverTrumps which can include magazines. Granted, that 20% violated my categories in that they switch from “rebellion” side to NeverTrump GOPe side. But is 80% accuracy OK? Would you want me add all the subcategories to track the non-conforming subgroups in the middle of the post?
This is a little clearer. I infer that the only real GOPe candidate was Jeb. So you do not violate my electorate portrayal if you voted for anyone except Jeb. See explanation above for change from Cruz to NeverTrump.
I am limited to 250 words, so it takes two replies. I think that is a false comparison. I group Trump and Cruz into a single category and it is valid for how I used it – that the establishment was against them. But if Cruz got the nomination we would not see a NeverCruz movement as ferocious as the NeverTrump. Trump is 10 magnitudes more removed from the establishment than Cruz, who is a senator, a solid Republican, a solid conservative, and been in government service for decades. No sir, that is a Cruz apple compared to a Trump orange. My grouping does imply that there would be a NeverCruz movement, and I am certain there would be (certain sore losers and the GOPe). But my grouping does not imply a NeverCruz movement would be just the same as a NeverTrump.
No, though I appreciate the added clarity you added.
True so far as it goes, though I’m still deeply dubious as to whether this is the right rubric to use, especially considering that significant players would have switched sides. Besides NR switching from Never to Support, consider that John Boehner endorsed Trump and has been friendly with him for years, but considers Ted Cruz to be the devil himself.
To be clear, I concede that there would be significant overlap among NeverTrump and NeverCruz, but that the differences are important enough to make the grouping rather weak.
I frankly find them both rather underwhelming in this regard. While Trump has not previously been a member of the Republican Establishment himself, he clearly has made an art of schmoozing socially with such people, both ingratiating himself with them and they with him. Again, Clintons at his wedding, Chelsea and Ivanka apparently being acquaintances, John Boehner being his texting buddy, Rudy Giuliani being a personal friend. That’s a lot of access for someone who’s an outsider.
Any group categorization fails if one looks for outliers at the level of individuals. Do you think the outliers exceed 25%? If so, the grouping does indeed weaken, but if there is an 80% or better correlation to reality, that’s good.
Great, that confirms there is indeed a 75+% correlation. Thus the grouping is valid.
Let’s define outsider. He is not a social outsider since he is part of the schmoozing patron class that sends money to the political class having the power. However, he is attempting to jump from patron class to political class. He is violating the boundaries and trying to get political power directly. THAT makes him a complete outsider who is being repelled with great ferocity.
You’re right. That was what happened. There goes my theory that the NR of today’s NeverTrumpism was connected with WFB’s and then many NR writers’ advocacy for cannabis legalization. I think the NR of Nixon’s day mostly smoked tobacco.