Trump: Who Needs the Party?

[ag]

Republicans are going to have to realize there is simply no way Trump is going to win the Presidency.

In addition, Republicans have to realize that even if he were to win the Presidency, it would still be a loss for the Republican party. To put it simply: the party has, pretty much, decided not to field a candidate in this election. Trump is not a Republican, and no Republican should feel any obligation to vote for him, even if he is, technically, running under the Republican lable.

[ag]

Republicans are going to have to realize there is simply no way Trump is going to win the Presidency.

In addition, Republicans have to realize that even if he were to win the Presidency, it would still be a loss for the Republican party. To put it simply: the party has, pretty much, decided not to field a candidate in this election. Trump is not a Republican, and no Republican should feel any obligation to vote for him, even if he is, technically, running under the Republican label.

But Trump IS a Republican.  REPUBLICANS voted for him in free elections; it's not like he stuffed the ballot boxes or bribed the vote counters.  

Trump represents millions of folks who have probably voted Republican since 2000, and maybe forever, but whose viewpoints leave them poorly represented by their party.  He's more of a Republican than, say, George Wallace was a Democrat (or, at least, a NATIONAL Democrat).  

A Party is of course, its voters. But it is, also, an institution. Trump has zero interest in buidling up institutions of the Republican party. Normally, both major US parties are broad coalitions of disparate factions, but all factions benefit from mutual cooperation in achieving their needs. That cooperation is sustained by long-term relationships. Trump is not interested in those relationships. He represents just one element of the broad Republican coalition, but he creates no incentives for the other members of the coalition to stick with him. They will not get their policies implemented (since they disagree with him on policy), they will not get positive electoral coattails from his performance, they will not get resources to run campaigns. Trump, as long as he remains the face of the party, makes participation in the Republican electoral coalition unattractive to anybody, other than those who directly agree with him on issues or like him personally. Furthermore, he has no interest in sustaining the party institutions long term: as far as he is concerned, after him is the deluge. He is not the party leader: he is its undertaker.

[ag]

Trump's right. He has billions of dollars.

Does he? It would be interesting to see some evidence of that. So far, at least as far as this campaign is concerned, there has been none.

[ag]

Ike was a nationally unifying figure. I mean, the entire campaign theme was "I like Ike, you like Ike, Everybody likes Ike". He could have served as a figurehead for any coalition of everything good against everything bad. He chose the Republican coalition, and they did quite nicely by him. They, actually, got majorities in both Houses (a rare success fort the party in the age) and though he might not have been the most traditional Republican, he was not at odds either with mainstream Republicanism or with the party structure (the main reason not to work through Knowland was that Knowland was crappy at his job as a party leader - but, then, LBJ was then viewed as being very much on the conservative wing of the party, ideologically, on most issues, quite Republican-compatible). Overall, the party did fine by Ike, and never had reasons to complain.  As much as I stare at your post, I cannot find any similarities with the Trump case whatsoever.

Willkie lost. Miserably lost, BTW.