Quo Vadis GOP?

[Sophie Scholl]

I'd be interested to see a new poll about the assault on the Capitol a week later. I have a feeling that rosy, but still very alarming, 80% has shrunk quite a bit. The initial shock has worn off and the spin doctors (no Three Princes needed) have had time to do their job and spread the messaging to the right sources to reach the masses via talk radio, OANN, NewsMax, Fox News, Facebook, and the other usual suspects.

[Sheilbh]

This is the question: will continued political violence designed to overturn the election and perpetuate Trump in power actually succeed in perpetuating Trump in power?

Or will this, instead, divide the Republican Party?

I guess we shall see. I would predict the latter. I hope I'm right.

Yeah. I suppose my point is there were two attempts to overturn the election. One was the mob: half-laughable, half-terrifying who would, I have no doubt, killed lawmakers given the chance. Everyone will find it easy to distance themselves from that. Various of the most Trumpy "Stop the Steal" Reps and media figures already have - Trump has distanced himself from them.

The other attempt was by a significant number of Republican Reps and Senators after the violence. In spite of that they still tried to overturn the election result. In terms of the Republican Party I think that's the more significant because that happened despite the violence, that still has people behind it. 

And I think the mob would happen whatever if Trump lost - I suspect that vote may have been different if it came down to one or two key states, if there was still an open seat on the Supreme Court, if they'd decisively lost the Senate. If the levers of Republican/conservative minoritarian power were at risk I'm not sure only half their Reps and 10-20% of their Senators would have voted to try and block election results having effects.

But I don't think that insurrection matters - or it matters less than the GOP vote - because from what I've seen most Republicans are moving swiftly from this to calls to "unify and heal" and/or outrage over Twitter/"repression of free speech". This won't cause division because that'd require someone to defend it which is not going to happen. No-one's going to defend it and no-one has so far - it can't divide the party when everyone can get around "we condemn violence yadda yadda yadda". But we're going to hear "lots of legitimate questions" about the 2020 election for the next 4 years etc. I mean look at Madison Cawthorn who spoke at the rally and is already moving on, or Mo Brooks who is subject to a censure motion:
https://brooks.house.gov/media-center/news-releases/congressman-mo-brooks-rebuts-vicious-scurrilous-fake-news-media-and

[Razgovory]

So far, what I've seen from Republicans in response to the attack on the capitol is either one of fantasy (as in the whole thing was 'antifa'), whataboutism (as in 'this is just the same as BLM getting out of hand'), and only as a minority option, approval.

However, while the attackers managed to kill a cop, they didn't succeed in assassinating politicians.

I do think the latter is likely now - too many armed crazies have been riled up, it is impossible to protect everyone against well armed crazy people. What happens then, though? Will the majority of Republican voters watch political assassinations and say 'this is what I want'? If so, our most pessimistic outcomes become likely.

I suspect that what will happen is that there will be increasing pressure on the party to fissure into Trumpite and non-Trumpite factions. Those who were formerly Trumpites out of expedience are likely to  desert the cause, unless it is a popular vote-getter. Trump will not be in a position to bestow favours any more.

In short, increasing domestic terrorism is likely to make Trumpism less popular, and not more, among the pool of Republican voters. Some 80% allegedly already disapprove of the attack on the Capitol. That means a lot of people still approve, but I would predict that number will not increase when the crazies move on to increasing acts of terrorism.

We have seen this pattern before.  Trump does something terrible and faces backlash as a result.  After a few weeks of anger and confusion Trump's supporters rally to Trump and we are back to square one.

[Malthus]

I agree - if the Capitol assault was a singular event, the Republicans would manage to erode the outrage.

The problem for them emerges if it is not, if the mob they have summoned keeps attacking. Which I think is likely.

This will be more difficult for them to shrug off. Particularly if they keep claiming that the terrorists are basically right, that democracy was "stolen".

[Sheilbh]

I agree - if the Capitol assault was a singular event, the Republicans would manage to erode the outrage.

The problem for them emerges if it is not, if the mob they have summoned keeps attacking. Which I think is likely.

This will be more difficult for them to shrug off. Particularly if they keep claiming that the terrorists are basically right, that democracy was "stolen".

Maybe. I think it makes it easier for them to try Trumpism without Trump. They don't have to address the underlying issues, or the questioning of democracy because they can just point at mobs and say "well obviously we condemn violence but..."

[Razgovory]

Trump is using his old strategy from the last impeachment.  "Every thing I said was fine."

[Eddie Teach]

Maybe. I think it makes it easier for them to try Trumpism without Trump. They don't have to address the underlying issues, or the questioning of democracy because they can just point at mobs and say "well obviously we condemn violence but..."

As long as Trump is still fueling the riots, it'll put heat on those unwilling to go against him. Much better for them if this tapers off on its own.

[frunk]

Trump is using his old strategy from the last impeachment.  "Every thing I said was fine."

He learned his lesson with the last impeachment, so the second time he'll learn it twice as well.

[Sophie Scholl]

Trump is using his old strategy from the last impeachment.  "Every thing I said was fine."

He learned his lesson with the last impeachment, so the second time he'll learn it twice as well.

*pulls off mask* Susan Collins?! 

[Razgovory]

My senator (the one that isn't a fascist.), said that he thinks Trump learned his lesson this time.

"The President should be very careful over the next 10 days that his behavior is what you'd expect from the leader of the greatest country in the world. Now, my personal view is that the President touched the hot stove on Wednesday and is unlikely to touch it again."

That really pisses me off.  How many times are we going to go through with this?  I am very sympathetic to the "a time to heal" idea, but there are some requirements.  You have to denounce Trump and the extreme right and have to say that Joe Biden won the election with out any fraud.  I'm one of those dipshits that believes bipartisanship is a good thing, and I desperately want to reach out to the other side, but it's becoming obvious that Republicans won't even make the effort to meet us half-way.  To be honest, I don't even know what they want anymore.  For some Republicans I beginning to suspect that the problem with Trump's little coup was that it failed.

[Malthus]

I agree with you, Raz - bipartisanship requires a bedrock minimum, and that minimum in a democracy is agreeing that if you lose elections, you are out.

If you can't agree on that, you are an enemy of democracy, no matter how loudly you trumpet your patriotism.

[jimmy olsen]

One of the 9 GOP House representatives, who didn't vote to overturn the election, said that he expects that he has exposed himself and his family to danger by his vote. And also, that several of his peers voted to overturn the election because they were afraid of being targets of violence.

There are 211 GOP house representatives and 147 voted to overturn the election, so there are 64 who didn't

[Eddie Teach]

I think that goes to show how bad gerrymandering is. They're more worried about primary challengers than democrats.

[Jacob]

I assume there is no way to counter gerrymandering on a federal level?

[Admiral Yi]

I assume there is no way to counter gerrymandering on a federal level?

The SC has ruled that the Constitution does not forbid partisan gerrymandering, as opposed to racial gerrymandering.

Of course there's always the Constitutional amendment route.

And of course there's always the theoretical possibility that a future Democrat controlled SC could discover that the Constitution does forbid it after all.

It's tough because the Constitution explicitly awards control over elections to the states.