I fail to see this. The GOP has it s biggest majorities ever.
I'm not sure why that precludes "civil war" in the form of a slew of high profile primary challenges. Yes, the GOP has big majorities, and yet Strange got a primary challenger. There'll most likely be many other primary challenges next year. That's what this story is talking about. What part do you disagree with?
Strange wasn't an elected incumbent; he was an interim appointee who was appointed under somewhat unsavory conditions. This situation almost always invites primary challenges, even in times when the state of the major party is harmonious.
OK, but it looks like there'll be more primary challenges next year. Whether any of them succeed is unclear, but, as described in this story, Bannon, the Mercers, etc. are plotting more primary challenges. That's what the story is calling "civil war". Now, it might be hyperbole, since primary challenges to Republican incumbents have become much more routine in recent years, but it's the term the story used to describe this plotting by the Bannon brigade. I'm not sure what this has to do with the fact that the GOP currently controls all the branches of government, so I'm not sure why you brought that up. Bannon and friends are going to push their "insurgency" regardless of whether the party is in the majority or the minority, so what does the GOP being in power have to do with whether it's engaged in a "civil war"?
