Epicaricacy

[The Gipper]

Ladies and Gentlemen, and particularly Republicans. Usually I charge fees for my political consultancy. (which is why you never usually see me on this forum)...but here I will give you some free advice, though, this is not advice so much as it is a predictive statement. As you may know after last night's debate Mr. Trump waffled on whether or not he would "accept" the results of the election, telling us all to "stay tuned" as if the political future is soap opera or a game show. (point in fact, that is what it may be to him). What his statement augurs, and why the Republican party in particular should be wary, is the fact that when he loses (which he is almost certain to do) he may in all likelihood attempt to create a Third Party (or a 5th or 6th party if you count the Libertarians and the Greens) under whose banner he or some appointee of his (given his age) may attempt to run for President again in 4 years.
Trump will attempt to siphon off the hard right/Breitbart wing of the Republican party, and have that core group become somewhat of a plaything for him to go along with the new "Trump Network" that he is apt to form.
The concern for the Republicans is that his "base" does constitute a significant portion of the current Republican party. That portion, in abandoning the Mainstream Republican party, could leave it as somewhat of a rump organization, not strong enough to get a candidate elected, at least in the near future. Decent mainstream Republicans who may be future POTUS nominees, such as Paul Ryan, John Kasich, Marc Rubio and the like would have a heavy uphill fight to get elected, having to battle a strong Democratic party united behind an incumbent, and then having to battle the "Trump Roast" party on their right. This likely may not concern Trump and some of his cohorts, whose primary ambition is to seek publicity and create havoc in the political system, but it should concern most of you. Face it, if he is modestly successful in his Schaudenfreude against the Republicans, this could essentially become a one party system at least when it comes to the Presidency.

[One Post]

Why would Trump accept the results of the election when the Republicans or some of them won't back him? The whole deal with Trump has become what he has done or said rather than the important issues at hand.

[The Gipper]

Just on an historical note, the same party winning 4 or more elections in a row with 2 or more candidates is not rare:

 

1932/1936/1940/1944/1948 5 elections won by Dems with FDR/Truman

 

1896/1900/1904/1908 4 elections won by Reps with McKinley and TR

 

1860/1864/1868/1872/1876/1880 6 elections in a row won by Reps with Lincoln/Grant/Hayes/Garfield

 

1804/1808/1812/1816/1820 5 elections in a row won by Dem-Reps with Jefferson, Madison and Monroe

 

Since WWI and Truman, the only time that a party won 3 times in a row was with Reagan's two terms and GHW Bush's one term.

[MLD Woody]

The situation you described is a best case scenario IMO. It splits the far right / evangelical vote from the moderate Republicans. You can then have a party with conservative fiscal (and other) policies while holding "liberal" (not from the 50s) social views.

[The Gipper]

More historical notes about Presidential Elections:

 

Since 1892 the Electoral votes need to get elected has been set at 270. Prior to that it was a smaller number.

 

The smallest number that a candidate has gotten in that time is the 271 that GW Bush got in 2000 vs. Al Gore.

The largest number was the 525 Ronald Reagan got in 1984 vs. Walter Mondale.

 

The following candidates lost the electoral college despite having more popular votes:

 

1876 Tilden had 252,224 more votes than Hayes, but Hayes won the Electoral College

1888 Grover Cleveland had 98,017 more votes than Ben Harrison, but Harrison won the EC

2000 Al Gore had 543,895 more votes than GW Bush, but Bush won that narrowest of EC votes

 

One Candidate actually got the most Electoral Votes, but was not voted into office:

1824 Andrew Jackson won more EC votes....but, he did not get a majority. 4 different candidates all got EC votes. Under the Constitution, in that case the election went to the House or Representatives....who selected the runnerup John Quincy Adams.

[OldBrownsFan]

Ladies and Gentlemen, and particularly Republicans. Usually I charge fees for my political consultancy. (which is why you never usually see me on this forum)...but here I will give you some free advice, though, this is not advice so much as it is a predictive statement. As you may know after last night's debate Mr. Trump waffled on whether or not he would "accept" the results of the election, telling us all to "stay tuned" as if the political future is soap opera or a game show. (point in fact, that is what it may be to him). What his statement augurs, and why the Republican party in particular should be wary, is the fact that when he loses (which he is almost certain to do) he may in all likelihood attempt to create a Third Party (or a 5th or 6th party if you count the Libertarians and the Greens) under whose banner he or some appointee of his (given his age) may attempt to run for President again in 4 years.

Trump will attempt to siphon off the hard right/Breitbart wing of the Republican party, and have that core group become somewhat of a plaything for him to go along with the new "Trump Network" that he is apt to form.

The concern for the Republicans is that his "base" does constitute a significant portion of the current Republican party. That portion, in abandoning the Mainstream Republican party, could leave it as somewhat of a rump organization, not strong enough to get a candidate elected, at least in the near future. Decent mainstream Republicans who may be future POTUS nominees, such as Paul Ryan, John Kasich, Marc Rubio and the like would have a heavy uphill fight to get elected, having to battle a strong Democratic party united behind an incumbent, and then having to battle the "Trump Roast" party on their right. This likely may not concern Trump and some of his cohorts, whose primary ambition is to seek publicity and create havoc in the political system, but it should concern most of you. Face it, if he is modestly successful in his Schaudenfreude against the Republicans, this could essentially become a one party system at least when it comes to the Presidency.

 

If the choice is between the democrat party and the democrat lite party that doesn't seem like much of a choice to me. After 8 years of Obama we have had anemic economic growth and the national debt has almost doubled. Liberal economic tax and spend policies don't work. If Clinton gets elected you can count on the continuing anemic economic growth and all the other failures of the Obama administration as she continues his third term. My guess is the people will wake up sooner or later and want an alternative to the democrats. If the republicans don't want a split in the party they should be supporting the party's nominee who fairly won the nomination.

[FairHooker11]

The Hard Right? Im ok with that we are still in the running when you talk center right....

 

to a lot of people - the conservative (fiscal) republican working in DC is no longer a opposing political alliance (with balls)

 

but rather a go along - get along group content with the benefits that BIG government (read liberals) affords them.

 

Trump was correct in not giving Wallace the answer that everyone expected.... concede and bestow a peaceful transition? HA!!

 

He gave truthful answer with prudence that keeps the focus on the perceived corrupt nature of his opponent.....

 

I'll say this for the Republican party, they at least have the guts to pull something like this off - an experiment that risks everything

 

for the sake of including outsiders of all kinds to join in - versus the plain, vanilla, corrupt from the top down "yes" men that we get from the left.

 

And guys like Ryan or Rubio's political future can be bright if they only take a look at Trumps template for being truthful and real.

 

by hammering the slants and distortions by the media.

 

 

[calfoxwc]

rubio and ryan are political cowards. It's sad - it's like their mentor is John McCain.

[The Gipper]

Here is the thing though: After this election, Republicans may be forced to choose to stay with the institution that has been here for 160 years and that has produced such American icons as Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower, Ronald Reagan

 

...or, they can splinter off, abandon that institution, join a new hard right party that would be based upon a cult of personality about one man whose primal instincts are to be authoritarian and narcisstic.

 

If you are Republican, you may have to decide which path to choose. Choose the party of Lincoln/TR/Ike/Reagan, or choose the new Party of Trump........(who, if elected may likely state the following in his inauguration address: "Ask Not what your country can do for you. Ask what your country can do for me.")

[OldBrownsFan]

Here is the thing though: After this election, Republicans may be forced to choose to stay with the institution that has been here for 160 years and that has produced such American icons as Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower, Ronald Reagan

 

...or, they can splinter off, abandon that institution, join a new hard right party that would be based upon a cult of personality about one man whose primal instincts are to be authoritarian and narcisstic.

 

If you are Republican, you may have to decide which path to choose. Choose the party of Lincoln/TR/Ike/Reagan, or choose the new Party of Trump........(who, if elected may likely state the following in his inauguration address: "Ask Not what your country can do for you. Ask what your country can do for me.")

 

I think a lot of people Gip are fed up with the corruption and politics as usual as our country goes deeper into debt and going further into decline. You are right if the republican party splits it would be a disaster and would ensure a one party rule. To keep from having a split the republicans need to unite all factions that make up the GOP which includes supporting the republican presidential nominee. For years now the establishment wing of the GOP has been able to get their candidates as the nominees and they have been supported for the most part by the harder right wing of the GOP. This election the establishment republicans did not get their candidate and many have turned on Trump instead of just disagreeing with him. I supported all the loser republican candidates in the past even though they were not my choice such as Dole, McCain and Romney but I will have to think about supporting the establishment republicans in the future. They talk the talk with the harder right wing of the party to get their votes then go to Washington and don't follow through with much of anything they promised to get elected. For example on border security there is a reason the border has not been secured and that is because both parties for their own selfish interests have wanted the southern border to be open. The democrats see a new block of voters who will keep them in power and the chamber of commerce republicans like the cheap labor so for decades all that has been done to secure the border has been a lot of empty rhetoric.

 

However if we see a split in the democratic party (along with the republicans) with the hard left and both parties are split up and we have 4,5 or 6 parties that are viable that may end up being a good thing with more competition. The 2 party rule has become corrupt and stagnant.