2016 elections - because it's never too early

[jimmy olsen]

Split! Split! Split!

http://thehill.com/opinion/juan-williams/257217-juan-williams-gop-right-wing-acts-like-its-own-party

Juan Williams: GOP right wing acts like its own party

By Juan Williams - 10/19/15 06:00 AM EDT

Is the Freedom Caucus moving the United States toward a European-style coalition government?

At the moment, the 40-plus hard-right conservatives in the Freedom Caucus have all but created their own political party by blocking the majority of Republicans in the House from picking a Speaker.

And, like a third party, the Freedom Caucus has its own legislative agenda — ending ObamaCare, cutting the budget, building a wall on the southern border. The only question is whether its members are willing to make deals that will attract enough Republicans or Democrats to pass legislation.

ADVERTISEMENT
That is the operating dynamic of a multiparty, coalition democracy.

The heart of the Freedom Caucus's discontent with Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) is that, although the Tea Party's victories in 2010 gave him the House majority, he has refused to follow their lead.

Boehner and the majority of congressional Republicans want to make deals with Democrats that the Tea Party members find unacceptable, even for the sake of keeping the government open.

And the Freedom Caucus finds party-like unity in rebuffing the Speaker's efforts to discipline them for committee or floor votes that stray from the mainstream Republican line. They feel Boehner shares neither their agenda nor the passions of the voters who sent them to Congress.

"Remember, for us, much of it has to do with the process and empowering individual members and the constituents that sent us here," Rep. John Fleming (R-La.), a member of the Freedom Caucus, told The New York Times.

"I want there to be more respect for individual members, and I abhor a process where members who are in good faith voting as they believe is necessary and best for our country, are punished by the leadership," Rep. Mo Brooks (R-Ala.), another Freedom Caucus member, told National Journal.

The Freedom Caucus and the people who sent it to Washington want to sit at the big table and decide on their own deals. All that is required now is that the rebels pick their own leader and begin negotiations with the Republicans and Democrats.

But first they have to officially divorce the GOP and form their own party.

There are enough hard-right Republican voters who agree with this call for independence from GOP leadership to back a new party under the name of the Freedom Caucus.

That is especially true if you factor in the hard right's dominance of the messaging coming from hard-right radio talk-show hosts and bloggers. Those calls to political arms are reinforced in constant fundraising appeals from groups such as Heritage Action, FreedomWorks, the Senate Conservatives Fund and Club for Growth.

Historically, third parties have not had much luck in U.S. politics.

For example, Teddy Roosevelt's Progressive Party was swallowed up by the Republicans early in the 20th century. In the 1960s, disaffected Southern Democrats backed segregationist Alabama Gov. George Wallace's American Independent Party. Many of those Southern Democrats later became Republicans.

But the Freedom Caucus and Tea Party-types show no signs that they are willing to be absorbed by the Republican Party. They want to be autonomous, free to ally with mainstream Republicans only when they feel it suits their ideological agenda.

The passions that could birth a third party are already discernible in the anti-establishment tone dominating the GOP presidential primary race. Donald Trump, Ben Carson and Carly Fiorina — two businesspeople and a doctor without any track record of governing — have dominated the primaries so far at the expense of experienced, mainstream Republican politicians.

Last week, a new poll confirmed there is genuine, significant support among GOP voters for the Freedom Caucus's discontent with establishment Republican leaders.

The Economist/YouGov Poll found 39 percent of all Republicans and 45 percent of self-identified conservative Republicans siding with the Freedom Caucus position that a good Speaker puts unflinching ideological rigidity ahead of accomplishing legislative deals with Democrats to pass laws and budgets.

Similarly, the poll found 58 percent of conservative Republicans saying they want a new Speaker who "sticks to their principles no matter what."

That is far different from the poll's finding that 60 percent of all Americans think the next Speaker should "work with Democrats and the President so that Congress can accomplish more." Only 18 percent of all Americans and 16 percent of independent voters think the next House Speaker should "oppose Democrats and the President even if that means Congress accomplishes less."

In fact, 59 percent of conservative Republicans told the pollsters they want the next Speaker to be more conservative than Boehner. Among all Republicans, the percentage holding that opinion drops markedly, to 48 percent.

That people who comprise that 11-percentage-point difference between Republicans and conservative Republicans will provide the grassroots base for the new party.

This is also why any new Speaker, including the popular Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), will inherit a fractured, unruly and ungovernable caucus. The solution is for the Tea Party members to go their own way, pick their own leader and work with the Republicans when it fits their agenda.

The irony here is that the Tea Party, which regularly decries "European socialism" and professes "American exceptionalism," will put the Congress of the United States in a position where it can only function as a European-type parliamentary democracy such as France, Britain or Germany.

History will record it as a curious legacy for the Tea Party.   

Juan Williams is an author and political analyst for Fox News Channel.

[Valmy]

Split! Split! Split!

I will never get your constant celebration and enthusiasm for chaos and destruction.

[jimmy olsen]

Split! Split! Split!

I will never get your constant celebration and enthusiasm for chaos and destruction.

I hardly think this merits that description.

[Valmy]

I hardly think this merits that description.

The collapse of the two party system?

[Berkut]

Fiorina's momentum has declined quite a bit while Rubio remains strong.  Trump and Carson are resilient as ever.

What I find alarming is not that Trump has some percentage, or that Carson has some percentage, but that between the two of them, there are enough ignorant fucking Republicans that about half the responders support the most crazy of the possible contenders.

That puts lie to the idea that this is some minority of radical extremists - if half the Republicans think Carson OR Trump (or Cruz for that matter - throw him in an we are over 50% in the "I like crazy people" camp) would be an awesome President, then the problem is hardly a radical nutjob minority, is it a radical nutjob majority of the party.

[jimmy olsen]

I hardly think this merits that description.

The collapse of the two party system?

Is the two party system good for America?

[Valmy]

Is the two party system good for America?

It does seem to be in a rocky place with its primary purpose: to foster moderation and compromise. But it breaking up seems likely to make the problems worse rather than better.

[Berkut]

If the two party system failed, it would be a temporary failure. We would see a third party form, and then eventually one of the three parties would fail and go away.

It is probably exactly what is needed right now.

[Valmy]

If the two party system failed, it would be a temporary failure. We would see a third party form, and then eventually one of the three parties would fail and go away.

It is probably exactly what is needed right now.

Yeah the electoral structure pretty much guarantees a two party system.

[Eddie Teach]

Split! Split! Split!

Along what lines do you think the parties should split?

[garbon]

Fiorina's momentum has declined quite a bit while Rubio remains strong.  Trump and Carson are resilient as ever.

What I find alarming is not that Trump has some percentage, or that Carson has some percentage, but that between the two of them, there are enough ignorant fucking Republicans that about half the responders support the most crazy of the possible contenders.

That puts lie to the idea that this is some minority of radical extremists - if half the Republicans think Carson OR Trump (or Cruz for that matter - throw him in an we are over 50% in the "I like crazy people" camp) would be an awesome President, then the problem is hardly a radical nutjob minority, is it a radical nutjob majority of the party.

Yeah I'm thinking that if were to get polled on which Republican I'd want getting the nom, I'd have to say I'd vote for Bush or perhaps none of the above. They are all rather uninspiring but I can't see that causing me to jump head-on into nutville. But then maybe that's tied up in how I'm joining the Dem party again.

[DGuller]

I hardly think this merits that description.

The collapse of the two party system?

This won't be the collapse of the two party system.  The two party system rests on the first-past-the-post voting system.  It will just be another realignment, so that we'll have somewhat different two parties.  The only way for more than two parties to exist for more than just a transitional period is to have stark geographical separation, so that there isn't a lot of vote-splitting happening between similar factions.

[mongers]

Fiorina's momentum has declined quite a bit while Rubio remains strong.  Trump and Carson are resilient as ever.

What I find alarming is not that Trump has some percentage, or that Carson has some percentage, but that between the two of them, there are enough ignorant fucking Republicans that about half the responders support the most crazy of the possible contenders.

That puts lie to the idea that this is some minority of radical extremists - if half the Republicans think Carson OR Trump (or Cruz for that matter - throw him in an we are over 50% in the "I like crazy people" camp) would be an awesome President, then the problem is hardly a radical nutjob minority, is it a radical nutjob majority of the party.

In large part it's the UKIP/Syriza effect, these Americans are fed up with the party political system and mainstream types of politicians; supporting Trump/Carson or other wing-nuts, left or right, articulates that disenchantment.

[Valmy]

Yeah a huge portion of the voter base just wants to wreck shit. It makes no sense to me as things seem to be going pretty good from where I stand. I would say it is my white privilege talking but white people seem to be leading the charge

There is this belief that America is doomed or has collapsed that is just bizarre. I see it left and right.

[jimmy olsen]

Gross 

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/donald-trump-win-looking-more-and-more-likely-gop-vet-says/article/2574360

"I've resisted the idea that Donald Trump could and would become the Republican nominee," writes GOP strategist Alex Castellanos in an email assessment of the presidential race. "Unhappily, I've changed my mind."

Castellanos, who once said flatly that "Trump is not going to be the nominee," writes "the odds of Trump's success have increased and been validated in the past few weeks."

The key indicator, Castellanos says, is the fact that Trump dipped in the polls and now appears to be rising again. "In my experience, that tells us something important," Castellanos explains:

Republican voters went through a period of doubt about Trump, an understandable window of buyer's remorse. They went shopping for someone else — but returned, finding no acceptable alternative who could match Trump's bad-boy strength and his capacity to bring indispensable change. ... Fearing they have only one last chance to rescue their country, they found no one else as big as their problem.

"In my experience, once voters doubt but return, doubting again is less likely," Castellanos concludes. "A candidate's vote hardens."

Castellanos, who played a key role in Mitt Romney's 2008 campaign, believes either Trump or Ben Carson will win the Iowa caucuses. If it's Trump, Castellanos sees him going on to win New Hampshire and then the nomination. Even if Carson wins Iowa, Castellanos sees a strong chance of Trump winning New Hampshire and then going on to take the nomination.

If Trump wins Iowa and/or New Hampshire, Castellanos sees a "desperate GOP establishment" trying to settle on an "anti-Trump," perhaps Marco Rubio, to bring Trump down. But that would be a very difficult task. "History is not kind to candidates who play the long game," Castellanos writes. "No GOP nominee in modern history has failed to win either Iowa or NH. Period."

Castellanos believes that will remain the case in 2016. And for those who say there is still plenty of time left for the race to change in all sorts of ways, Castellanos disagrees. "Time is running out. Benghazi hearings, a debt fight, Halloween, Putin kicking over our lemonade stand a couple of times, Thanksgiving, Christmas, then one quick month until we start voting Feb. 1st. This race is solidifying and there isn't much time left for it to change. As Yogi Berra might have said, 'what comes later happens earlier than it used to.'"