On the Horns of a Republican Dilemma?

[carpedm9587]

Since the November 2017 elections, and following the Alabama Senate race, several stories have come out that talk about the Republican 2018 dilemma. The stories, from both right and left sources, describe the dilemma as follows:

Trump is by far the most popular Republican with Republicans. Although his 70+% approval rating is low in general (Republican presidents typically have an 80-90+% approval rating among Republicans), it is still way beyond McConnell, Ryan, or pretty much any other Republican office holder. This means that Republicans, in order to win a primary fight, have to come out pretty strongly in support of Trump.

But Trump has dismal approval ratings in the general population, hovering in the high 30s for most of the past several months. The somewhat weak Republican approval ratings coupled with the overwhelming antipathy among the general population make it VERY hard for a candidate with strong ties to Trump to make traction in the general election in anything other than deeply red districts and states.

Therein lies the dilemma. If the Republican candidate comes out strongly pro-Trump in the primaries, and then tries to pivot for the general election, their opposition now has hours of video and hundreds of quotes and audio clips pinning them to their pro-Trump position from the primary, making the pivot almost impossible.

I'm very curious to know if this is seen as an actual dilemma by the right, or if the general perception is that this is just more "left-wing propaganda," or something else?

[Bill the Cat]

Since the November 2017 elections, and following the Alabama Senate race, several stories have come out that talk about the Republican 2018 dilemma. The stories, from both right and left sources, describe the dilemma as follows:

Trump is by far the most popular Republican with Republicans. Although his 70+% approval rating is low in general (Republican presidents typically have an 80-90+% approval rating among Republicans), it is still way beyond McConnell, Ryan, or pretty much any other Republican office holder. This means that Republicans, in order to win a primary fight, have to come out pretty strongly in support of Trump.

But Trump has dismal approval ratings in the general population, hovering in the high 30s for most of the past several months. The somewhat weak Republican approval ratings coupled with the overwhelming antipathy among the general population make it VERY hard for a candidate with strong ties to Trump to make traction in the general election in anything other than deeply red districts and states.

Therein lies the dilemma. If the Republican candidate comes out strongly pro-Trump in the primaries, and then tries to pivot for the general election, their opposition now has hours of video and hundreds of quotes and audio clips pinning them to their pro-Trump position from the primary, making the pivot almost impossible.

I'm very curious to know if this is seen as an actual dilemma by the right, or if the general perception is that this is just more "left-wing propaganda," or something else?

Flipping your positions typically causes a dilemma.

[carpedm9587]

Flipping your positions typically causes a dilemma.

Not sure if that was the point of the dilemma. The dilemma had to do with no viable path. Anti-Trump leads to loss of chance in the primaries. Pro-Trump leads to loss of chance in the general. The best possible path is "neutral Trump" with a hope at winning in the primary. But in swing states, that just might not fly.

My question was really: Real dilemma? Fake dilemma? Unknown?

[Mountain Man]

Flipping your positions typically causes a dilemma.

I think he's saying that the dilemma for Republican candidates is that they'll be forced to say one thing to win the nomination, and then say the opposite to win the general election. But basing this on the very strange Alabama race seems like a shaky premise. Moore didn't lose because he was a Trump conservative, he lost because the left successfully smeared him with demonstrably false accusations, and the Republican establishment abandoned him. I'm not so sure it's a template for future elections, although who knows; since the Democrats were able to take out Moore, who knows how many more "victims" are waiting in the wings to launch 11th-hour accusations against Republicans.

It's also entirely possible for a candidate to present himself as reliably conservative and pro-American without being in Trump's back pocket. Something like, "I will support our President as long as he continues to support America," could send the right message and recognizes the reality that Trump supporters are not Trump sycophants.

[Cow Poke]

There's so much spin from both sides, and with such intensity, that I have no idea how this will work out.

If Serpenthead is correct, "it's the economy, stupid", and we aren't close enough to elections to see how that will fare.

There is a whole lot of spin about the tax plan, too, so we'll see if the Republicans can change the narrative on that.

Too many variables.

[carpedm9587]

There's so much spin from both sides, and with such intensity, that I have no idea how this will work out.

If Serpenthead is correct, "it's the economy, stupid", and we aren't close enough to elections to see how that will fare.

There is a whole lot of spin about the tax plan, too, so we'll see if the Republicans can change the narrative on that.

Too many variables.

There are indeed a lot of variables, so the outcome is clearly not nailed down. I will say this however: the elections thus far have shown an average 10 point drift to the left. If that pattern continues, 60+ districts will shift to Democratic control this year, giving Democrats decisive control of the House - despite Operation Red Map. In 2020, Republicans are in the reverse position with respect to the Senate (i.e., defending more seats than they are contesting). If they do not field a candidate against Trump in the primaries, and continue on this "Trump is everything" path - I predict they will basically do what Democrats did in 2016 (i.e., Clinton is everything). I suspect the results will be essentially the same.

We should start taking bets...

[Starlight]

I will say this however: the elections thus far have shown an average 10 point drift to the left.

Where do you get the 10 point number from? I've seen one of the guys at 538 say it was a mean and median of +16 for dems so far in elections. And current future polling is projecting +13 on average.

If that pattern continues, 60+ districts will shift to Democratic control this year, giving Democrats decisive control of the House - despite Operation Red Map.

Interestingly their Red Map gerrymandering is actually going to hurt them due to the wave.

e.g. consider 4-districts that pre-gerrymander had 1 strong Red, 1 strong Blue, and 2 that are 50-50. Post-gerrymander with Red Map they'll have moved blue voters out of the contested districts and into the strong red and strong blue ones, leaving 1 really strong blue and 3 that are 55-45 Red, thus having gerrymandered themselves a 'guaranteed' 3 of 4 seats in most years where previously it was likely 2-2 Blue-Red on average. But if you hit that with a blue wave that is higher than the post-gerrymander margins they've built for themselves, then Blue will get all four seats, instead of only getting the 3 of 4 seats that they would have gotten pre-gerrymander in a blue wave year.

So their own gerrymandering means that a blue wave will actually be much more damaging to them than it otherwise would have.

In 2020, Republicans are in the reverse position with respect to the Senate (i.e., defending more seats than they are contesting). If they do not field a candidate against Trump in the primaries

I saw Steve Bannon recently rated Trump's chances of both still being in office and wanting to run again in 2020 at only 30%. That seems a reasonable estimate to me. Although online betting markets seem to have it a lot higher.

If they do not field a candidate against Trump in the primaries, and continue on this "Trump is everything" path - I predict they will basically do what Democrats did in 2016 (i.e., Clinton is everything). I suspect the results will be essentially the same.

Yup. This is a reason why I, as a left-wing progressive, was quite happy for tactical purposes to see Trump beat Hillary in 2016. Unpopular or divisive presidents lead to wave elections, and it was better IMO to have an unpopular R president than an unpopular D president. It gives dems a chance to sweep the field in elections in 2018 and 2020, and they can find a more popular and less corrupt candidate than Hillary for 2020 (ideally Sanders IMO).

[Jedidiah]

Since the November 2017 elections, and following the Alabama Senate race, several stories have come out that talk about the Republican 2018 dilemma. The stories, from both right and left sources, describe the dilemma as follows:

Trump is by far the most popular Republican with Republicans. Although his 70+% approval rating is low in general (Republican presidents typically have an 80-90+% approval rating among Republicans), it is still way beyond McConnell, Ryan, or pretty much any other Republican office holder. This means that Republicans, in order to win a primary fight, have to come out pretty strongly in support of Trump.

But Trump has dismal approval ratings in the general population, hovering in the high 30s for most of the past several months. The somewhat weak Republican approval ratings coupled with the overwhelming antipathy among the general population make it VERY hard for a candidate with strong ties to Trump to make traction in the general election in anything other than deeply red districts and states.

Therein lies the dilemma. If the Republican candidate comes out strongly pro-Trump in the primaries, and then tries to pivot for the general election, their opposition now has hours of video and hundreds of quotes and audio clips pinning them to their pro-Trump position from the primary, making the pivot almost impossible.

I'm very curious to know if this is seen as an actual dilemma by the right, or if the general perception is that this is just more "left-wing propaganda," or something else?

I can only speak for myself, but I am not a great fan of Trump. I would vote for him again, as the lesser of two evils, against any liberal candidate of either party. Trump my not be great, but his is so much better than Hillary there is no contest. Factor that into your "dilemma."

[Bill the Cat]

Not sure if that was the point of the dilemma. The dilemma had to do with no viable path. Anti-Trump leads to loss of chance in the primaries. Pro-Trump leads to loss of chance in the general. The best possible path is "neutral Trump" with a hope at winning in the primary. But in swing states, that just might not fly.

My question was really: Real dilemma? Fake dilemma? Unknown?

It's unknown. The biggest problem with your question is that the sample so far is dramatically skewed. Name one race that a Dem won that wasn't either in an already blue leaning state or that wasn't wracked by scandal.

[Mountain Man]

It's unknown. The biggest problem with your question is that the sample so far is dramatically skewed. Name one race that a Dem won that wasn't either in an already blue leaning state or that wasn't wracked by scandal.

It's worth noting that Republicans were 5-0 in special elections until Alabama.

[Juvenal]

This means that Republicans, in order to win a primary fight, have to come out pretty strongly in support of Trump.

Mainline conservatives are abandoning the Republican party.

Trump's 80 percent support with Republicans (last table) is down from his support shortly after the inauguration, and, together with the overall decline in party affiliation, suggests the exodus may be accelerating.

If Trump is watering down the Republican party, he's firing up the opposition.

Representative Pete Sessions, a veteran Republican, was re-elected to his affluent Dallas-area House seat in 2016 with 71 percent of the vote, the remaining 29 percent split between the Libertarian and Green Party candidates.

Hillary Clinton won the district by three percentage points, but no Democratic candidate even showed up to ride her coattails.

In 2018, there will be 10.

Generic ballots are essentially meaningless, or at least they have been, historically. I'm not sure now. Trump's rebranding runs deep. I saw a Republican representative saying that loyalty to Trump has displaced ideological purity as the litmus test. Maybe that's true, and maybe that's correctable.

The Democrats' Bernie problem isn't comparable to the forces splitting the Republican party, but it's serious. Since Roosevelt, the Democrats have never strayed far from populism, but Sanders and Warren are promoting programs not seen since the New Deal.

Disaffected Republicans will stay away in droves. There's no home left for a classical conservative.

[Cow Poke]

Mainline conservatives are abandoning the Republican party.

Trump's 80 percent support with Republicans (last table) is down from his support shortly after the inauguration, and, together with the overall decline in party affiliation, suggests the exodus may be accelerating.

If Trump is watering down the Republican party, he's firing up the opposition.

Representative Pete Sessions, a veteran Republican, was re-elected to his affluent Dallas-area House seat in 2016 with 71 percent of the vote, the remaining 29 percent split between the Libertarian and Green Party candidates.

Hillary Clinton won the district by three percentage points, but no Democratic candidate even showed up to ride her coattails.

In 2018, there will be 10.

Generic ballots are essentially meaningless, or at least they have been, historically. I'm not sure now. Trump's rebranding runs deep. I saw a Republican representative saying that loyalty to Trump has displaced ideological purity as the litmus test. Maybe that's true, and maybe that's correctable.

The Democrats' Bernie problem isn't comparable to the forces splitting the Republican party, but it's serious. Since Roosevelt, the Democrats have never strayed far from populism, but Sanders and Warren are promoting programs not seen since the New Deal.

Disaffected Republicans will stay away in droves. There's no home left for a classical conservative.

I wonder what percent of former Republicans became Independents, like me, who would still most likely vote for a conservative over a liberal, but are disgusted with the Republican brand?

[demi-conservative]

Fixed!!!

[carpedm9587]

Where do you get the 10 point number from? I've seen one of the guys at 538 say it was a mean and median of +16 for dems so far in elections. And current future polling is projecting +13 on average.

I derived it using the PVI table on WikiPedia and the election data on Ballotopedia. I was only tracking the House elections, which may explain the disprepancy. I may also have made a math mistake. At least my number is wrong on the conservative side.

Interestingly their Red Map gerrymandering is actually going to hurt them due to the wave.

e.g. consider 4-districts that pre-gerrymander had 1 strong Red, 1 strong Blue, and 2 that are 50-50. Post-gerrymander with Red Map they'll have moved blue voters out of the contested districts and into the strong red and strong blue ones, leaving 1 really strong blue and 3 that are 55-45 Red, thus having gerrymandered themselves a 'guaranteed' 3 of 4 seats in most years where previously it was likely 2-2 Blue-Red on average. But if you hit that with a blue wave that is higher than the post-gerrymander margins they've built for themselves, then Blue will get all four seats, instead of only getting the 3 of 4 seats that they would have gotten pre-gerrymander in a blue wave year.

So their own gerrymandering means that a blue wave will actually be much more damaging to them than it otherwise would have.

Interesting analysis. If true, it suspect it will likely cut the legs from under the SCOTUS case currently in consideration.

I saw Steve Bannon recently rated Trump's chances of both still being in office and wanting to run again in 2020 at only 30%. That seems a reasonable estimate to me. Although online betting markets seem to have it a lot higher.

Hard to say what is actually in that man's head.

Yup. This is a reason why I, as a left-wing progressive, was quite happy for tactical purposes to see Trump beat Hillary in 2016. Unpopular or divisive presidents lead to wave elections, and it was better IMO to have an unpopular R president than an unpopular D president. It gives dems a chance to sweep the field in elections in 2018 and 2020, and they can find a more popular and less corrupt candidate than Hillary for 2020 (ideally Sanders IMO).

Sanders is a local boy to us. He did a lot of good as mayor in Burlington. I suspect he would be good, if he can get people working together again. Unfortunately, that is not his strong suit.

As for Dems sweeping the field, I certainly hope we do not over-correct again and go back to 2008, but I suspect that is a very likely outcome.

And so the pendulum swings...

[carpedm9587]

I can only speak for myself, but I am not a great fan of Trump. I would vote for him again, as the lesser of two evils, against any liberal candidate of either party. Trump my not be great, but his is so much better than Hillary there is no contest. Factor that into your "dilemma."

Actually - it's not "my" dilemma. However, I think the dilemma, as stated, factors in the observation that Trump has a base that will not leave him, and a body of Republicans and conservative independents that will simply never vote anything but Republican. The issue is largely related to the moderates and what they will do. There were a lot of moderates that were willing to "give Trump a chance" in 2016. Many of them have abandoned him, and he keeps chipping away at his own support by focusing so exclusively on his base and the right.

The latest chip is the 5 million Puerto Ricans living in the U.S., which the governor of Puerto Rico is trying to mobilize against Trump because of the situation in Puerto Rico post-Maria. Three months after the hurricane, apparently over half the island is still without power, people are still waiting for FEMA to provide assistance in ravaged areas, and the number of deaths in the past 3 months is over 1,000 people higher than the same period in previous years - presumably storm-related.

I think he greatest hope for Republicans taking the WH in 2020 is for Trump to decide not to run, or for Republican opposition to him in the primaries. Or something significant has to occur between now and then - which is a somewhat frightening prospect.