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 oppose Trump because he is an awful person. I literally care nothing about the Republican party. It can burn to the ground for all I care.
I would just add here that I am not saying that Trump’s current coalition going into this election is unstable. It is not and has been very consistently giving him high 30s to mid 40s support for a couple of months. This base is solid. What I am questioning is the OPs premise that this is solid voting block that will hold together in future Republican elections especially without Trump on the ballot. I do not think Trump has created a durable movement but instead has put together a winning coalition that exists in the circumstances of the present political environment. Changed circumstances will change this coalition.
This. 1000 likes!
Brian you may be surprised that I agree with you. My prognostications only goes to “post-November” meaning the months after the election. After that his present supporters will need to solidify into an organization or it will dissipate. What I have stated in several comments on this post is that once Trump is elected, he will be without a party. He will have two opposition parties. This is unique at least in my memory of the presidency. And it offers a wonderful opportunity for the Republican party to recast its image and redefine it’s message.
I have suggested such a recasting in another OP entitled A Manifesto –It Is Time to Subvert the Narratives. It could be the recast image of the Republican party, or it could be that the party splits and this is a new amalgamation of parts of several components (Trump supporters, Republicans, Libertarians, Reddish Democrats). I don’t presume that I really have such an influence, but I propose it as a thought experiment.
Me too.
Fair enough, there are more than just two types, but those are by far the two biggest groups, and the big government central planners won the primary and, flush with victory, are going to insist that the party move in their direction away from classical liberals.
My other point is, all the big government Republicans that people like to rail against as being part of the GOPe are probably just doing what their constituents wanted, advocating for bigger government and more central planning.
The lesson of this year’s primary is that big government central planners make up a much bigger portion of the Republican Party than many people are willing to admit. Trump got them to coalesce around him by promising something that had not been on offer in the Republican party for a while.
OK, got it…let’s all join together and support Trump and get him elected President, so that we can then publicly oppose him. This is why we have to oppose the Never Trump crowd, because they are prematurely anti-Trump. We must only be anti-Trump after “our guy” is in office.
Pardon me for a moment. WHAAAAAAAAAAT???!!!?!?!?!?!?!
I understand how you can perceive contradictions in my comments. Assuming a Trump win, I believe will happen is a short period where politics will resemble a three party system. I believe there is a strategy that provides for a transfer of Trump popularity back to the Party OR to a new party. It does not necessarily involve undermining Trump, but it will entail them differentiating themselves from Trump. Perhaps I should post on this idea. For now, please see a vision of what a new or recast Republican party can look like here.
After reading through the remaining 90 or so comments, I think I understand your reasoning better, and I agree with what I think your ultimate goal is. But I don’t think I’m on board with the strategy.
I am worried that with a Trump victory, then rather than sit in principled opposition to the Trump administration, the Republican Party will further corrupt itself with its desire for power unconstrained by principles or ideology. This will exacerbate the problem we’ve already had with the party establishment and simply worsen the crisis that led to Trump in the first place.
Our side, to the extent this is our side, will be chained to Trump in the public eye, even if we were to put ourselves in opposition. Trump’s high negative ratings (which I think will largely continue) will hit the GOP hard in the 2018 midterms and elect a Democratic president in 2020.
The only thing we get out of this is Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, who might be better than Hillary’s pick or might be the same. So there’s a chance we get this. And then we hunker down for 4-8 years of Democratic dominance with a GOP that is still in disarray and suffering intraparty fights and grudges.
Yes exactly. If Conservatives want to differentiate ourselves from Trump we have to start now and keep at it, no matter if he wins or loses.
So we are in agreement, since you described my Scenario 1 in the OP.
Scenarios 1 & 2 in the OP are the most likely. My alternate strategy, a possible Scenario 3, is the most positive outcome I can conceive that is consistent with human nature.
What Trumpsters would want is for the Republican party to get in line and follow Trump. Knowing human nature, and the undiluted arrogance of the Republican establishment, I would say it ain’t goin to happen. My hopeful alternate harnesses that competitive and selfish nature of humans (just like in capitalism) by having 3 political poles, Trump, R and D all competing for the presently disaffected Republicans, and (if Hillary loses) the soon to be pissed and disaffected Democrats. Everyone will be looking for a better party. And for the first time there will be more than a binary choice (!).
(continued)
This open political market place would be the best possible outcome of the present situation. I suspect the electorate will coalesce around two poles again, but I am hopeful the market competition will lead to a better product, just like in free markets.
So let the competition begin.
No. Then you trigger Scenario 2 (see end of original OP) and destroy the party. Wait until a Trump victory. If you wait, the Republican party will be the center man between two poles: Trump/Trumpsters on the right and the Democrats/Socialists on the left. And as we all know it is the center that decides political outcomes, similar to how the independent electorate gets to decide elections. If the Republican were smart (highly dubious I know), they would then re-brand (like this) and pull from both sides and end up the dominate party.
Let me address your objections.
Your first objection is incorrect. I did not say that NeverTrumps would actually “swing the election,” only that if Trump loses, especially if close, they will be blamed by the large majority of Trump supporters inside the party.
Your second accusation is correct, and due to you objection, I will qualify it. I do indeed assume the Republican establishment is the nexus of NeverTrumps, and are the funders of the NeverTrump PACs and drivers of the early NeverTrump media attacks. According to this history of the NeverTrump movement, the key people and organizations are directly tied to Republican leadership. I readily confess this a generalization, and if you now did a scatter plot of the NeverTrumps there are a lot of dots outside the “Rebuplican establishment.” It is the weakest of my generalized groupings, but I believe the NeverTrump early trajectory was certainly set by the Republican leadership and that a head count would still find leadership, Republican functionaries, and those directly influenced by the first two are the majority of the movement.
Your objection is incorrect and reveals a misunderstanding of the post. The whole OP is talking about the Republican electorate, not the general population. The 2016 Republican primary results should be the authoritative source for the 2016 Republican electorate. That was my source, I reference it accurately, and it shows:
My objection was about the Republican primary electorate. Candidates always create their own coalitions and every election after Trump will bring about different coalitions. The current divisions will not exist in future elections. There will be acrimony but for the typical voter they are looking at the candidates running and how they feel about him or her. Practically the exact same Republican electorate went for Conservative Goldwater in 64, swung left with Nixon in 68, swung harder left for Nixon in 72, just barely stayed liberal in 76 and became overwhelmingly conservative in 1980 and stayed that way. The 26% number stops being useful November 8th 2016.
Everything then has to do with a Trump victory or defeat and by how much. If a Trump win then it matters greatly how he governs. Nothing else really matters. Since we are talking about the future the current Trump coalition doesn’t really matter. What matters is the election and who wins it and what happens after it.
If the establishment had been behind Marco Rubio from the beginning and there had not been 20 million spent against him by Jeb the coalition he built would have been larger then the 26% you cite. Different circumstances bring about different results. Nearly all Republicans that could run post Trump have backed him with different degrees of enthusiasm. So none of them will have to run with the Nevertrump label attached. Do you see what I am saying here? If you are just talking about 2016 then ok I agree with you but that doesn’t matter for the future of the Republican party.
Agreed. But it is very predictive for the 2016 election. That is how I used it.
Please take this as a truthful friend and not as attack. You can see the election results and I explained it, yet you still can’t see it, just like the establishment. This year, the Republican electorate were in rebellion. If the establishment had gotten behind Rubio, he would have gotten less votes. There is a rebellion! – what filter prevents that perception? Let me put it this way. This year, it was not possible for a Republican to win the Republican nomination.
Yes and I agree, the NeverTrumps will be tainted and, if Trump loses, expelled, as I stated in the OP.
Let’s blend our perspective and agree on this. NeverTrump Land has two subgroups: The more influential, better funded, lead group that I have been calling the unelected Republican establishment. They are primarily motivated to protect their own interests. Let’s draw a ring around them. There there are two more concentric rings, The first ring are Republican functionaries (lower party officials, GOP consultants, associated organizations, Republican oriented media). The next ring are all those people under their influence (of the first two groups). Such as, a person I have dialogued with on FB who hates Trump and because she only trusts and reads National Review.
There is another smaller group who simply dislike Trump. I get a lot of grief from the second sub-group because of lumping them into the first, and I shouldn’t. It’s personal and often visceral for them. This is a complicated group, but I see at least two sub-sub-groups. Religious & Well-Bred (forgive the term). The former have a visceral reaction and see him as the opposite of their religious virtues. The latter have a visceral reaction and see him as the opposite of their decorum and intellect.
I think this is a good analysis. The snark and sneer comes from the professional group the most. Not to say, members of that group are not also in the smaller group as well.
I’m well bred, but also think he screws up on a lot of policy.
I don’t disagree there.