GOP Prepares for Intraparty Civil War

[Frodo]

Looks like the transformation of the Republican Party heralded by Donald Trump will outlast him, judging by the fact that his supporters don't seem beholden to him:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

WashPo

[Deblano]

The flaws of the two-party conglomerate are coming home to roost.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Bit of a redundant title, no?

[Fuzzy Bear]

I fail to see this.  The GOP has it s biggest majorities ever.  And it's not like the Democratic Party of 1932-64 which depended a lot on its conservative wing for its numerical majorities. 

Roy Moore isn't that far away from mainstream conservative Republicans in anything but style.  The GOP only has a few Republicans in the Northeast that are "moderates", and even they are closer to the National GOP than, say, John Stennis was to the National Democratic Party of his day.

The Republicans have always been more pragmatic than the Democrats in terms of viewing what there was to lose.

[GeorgiaModerate]

I fail to see this.  The GOP has it s biggest majorities ever.  And it's not like the Democratic Party of 1932-64 which depended a lot on its conservative wing for its numerical majorities. 

Roy Moore isn't that far away from mainstream conservative Republicans in anything but style.  The GOP only has a few Republicans in the Northeast that are "moderates", and even they are closer to the National GOP than, say, John Stennis was to the National Democratic Party of his day.

The Republicans have always been more pragmatic than the Democrats in terms of viewing what there was to lose.

Biggest majorities by what standard?  They have a minority President and modest majorities in both houses of Congress, far below the biggest they've ever had.

[YE]

This isn't news.

[Tintrlvr]

Bit of a redundant title, no?

"GOP prepares for Civil War" sounds like a neo-Confederate wet dream.

[136or142]

I fail to see this.  The GOP has it s biggest majorities ever.  And it's not like the Democratic Party of 1932-64 which depended a lot on its conservative wing for its numerical majorities.  

Roy Moore isn't that far away from mainstream conservative Republicans in anything but style.  The GOP only has a few Republicans in the Northeast that are "moderates", and even they are closer to the National GOP than, say, John Stennis was to the National Democratic Party of his day.

The Republicans have always been more pragmatic than the Democrats in terms of viewing what there was to lose.

Biggest majorities by what standard?  They have a minority President and modest majorities in both houses of Congress, far below the biggest they've ever had.

I think their majority in the U.S House is the biggest they've had in more than 70 years. They also hold a record (or near record) number of Governorships and state legislative seats/state legislatures.

However, as we saw during the W. Bush/Obama years, winning those things while being in the opposition to the Presidency and holding those things when holding the Presidency can be two entirely different things.

The modern Republican Party especially seems built for opposition (though only a destructive opposition) and, because it is only a destructive opposition, not actually capable of governing.

However, the other point is valid, that the Republican Party is largely united on substance, but divided on style/temperament and that, in terms of substance, the so called establishment wing of the Republican Party and the so called anti establishment wing are essentially the same.  All that shows clearly though, is that it is virtually the entirety of the Republican Party that is capable of being only a destructive opposition party.  Of course, there are the odd exceptions of governors like, most of the time, Bill Haslam, Brian Sandoval and John Kasich.

[TheSaint250]

So now we have to relive missed opportunities thanks to the Tea Party? I wonder what 2018’s DE 2010, NV 2010, CO 2010, and IN 2012 will be.

[Fuzzy Bear]

I fail to see this.  The GOP has it s biggest majorities ever.  And it's not like the Democratic Party of 1932-64 which depended a lot on its conservative wing for its numerical majorities. 

Roy Moore isn't that far away from mainstream conservative Republicans in anything but style.  The GOP only has a few Republicans in the Northeast that are "moderates", and even they are closer to the National GOP than, say, John Stennis was to the National Democratic Party of his day.

The Republicans have always been more pragmatic than the Democrats in terms of viewing what there was to lose.

Biggest majorities by what standard?  They have a minority President and modest majorities in both houses of Congress, far below the biggest they've ever had.

Biggest majorities in terms of the totality of control of government at all levels.  

The White House.  Both Houses of Congress.  The Supreme Court.  27 States have GOP control of the Governor's mansion and the legislature, another 6 states have a Democratic Governor, but the entire legislature is Republican.  There are also a total of 32 GOP Governors.  The GOP elects most local officials in America; the exception, of course, are the large cities and some of the larger suburbs.

Outside of major cities and some of the suburbs, where do the Democrats enjoy hegemony?  

[136or142]

So now we have to relive missed opportunities thanks to the Tea Party? I wonder what 2018’s DE 2010, NV 2010, CO 2010, and IN 2012 will be.

Kelli Ward in Arizona for starters.

[DrScholl]

I fail to see this.  The GOP has it s biggest majorities ever.  And it's not like the Democratic Party of 1932-64 which depended a lot on its conservative wing for its numerical majorities. 

Roy Moore isn't that far away from mainstream conservative Republicans in anything but style.  The GOP only has a few Republicans in the Northeast that are "moderates", and even they are closer to the National GOP than, say, John Stennis was to the National Democratic Party of his day.

The Republicans have always been more pragmatic than the Democrats in terms of viewing what there was to lose.

Biggest majorities by what standard?  They have a minority President and modest majorities in both houses of Congress, far below the biggest they've ever had.

Biggest majorities in terms of the totality of control of government at all levels.  

The White House.  Both Houses of Congress.  The Supreme Court.  27 States have GOP control of the Governor's mansion and the legislature, another 6 states have a Democratic Governor, but the entire legislature is Republican.  There are also a total of 32 GOP Governors.  The GOP elects most local officials in America; the exception, of course, are the large cities and some of the larger suburbs.

Outside of major cities and some of the suburbs, where do the Democrats enjoy hegemony?  

You can rattle off all these numbers like a kid with rotten teeth talking about all the candy he has, but the fact remains that your party has not accomplished anything despite controlling everything. All of that is going to be wiped out in 2018 anyway, because Republicans are heavily impacted by term limits and the fact that Trump is President.

[Mr. Morden]

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?

[Doimper]

I fail to see this.  The GOP has it s biggest majorities ever.  And it's not like the Democratic Party of 1932-64 which depended a lot on its conservative wing for its numerical majorities. 

Roy Moore isn't that far away from mainstream conservative Republicans in anything but style.  The GOP only has a few Republicans in the Northeast that are "moderates", and even they are closer to the National GOP than, say, John Stennis was to the National Democratic Party of his day.

The Republicans have always been more pragmatic than the Democrats in terms of viewing what there was to lose.

Biggest majorities by what standard?  They have a minority President and modest majorities in both houses of Congress, far below the biggest they've ever had.

Biggest majorities in terms of the totality of control of government at all levels.  

The White House.  Both Houses of Congress.  The Supreme Court.  27 States have GOP control of the Governor's mansion and the legislature, another 6 states have a Democratic Governor, but the entire legislature is Republican.  There are also a total of 32 GOP Governors.  The GOP elects most local officials in America; the exception, of course, are the large cities and some of the larger suburbs.

Outside of major cities and some of the suburbs, where do the Democrats enjoy hegemony?  

In 1992, the Republicans had trifectas in just three states, had just lost the Presidency, and didn't control either House of Congress. I guess that was the end of any major electoral successes for them, huh?

[Blue3]

Is this their 4th or 5th civil war within the last decade?

[TJ in Oregon]

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?

I'm not sure Strange getting a primary challenger is terribly indicative of the national environment considering he was appointed rather than elected and even moreso given the circumstances surrounding his appointment. I suspect the only true incumbent Republican Senator who is in primary danger is Jeff Flake.

[KingSweden]

I have this much sympathy for them:


Also..


.

I fail to see this.  The GOP has it s biggest majorities ever.  And it's not like the Democratic Party of 1932-64 which depended a lot on its conservative wing for its numerical majorities. 

Roy Moore isn't that far away from mainstream conservative Republicans in anything but style.  The GOP only has a few Republicans in the Northeast that are "moderates", and even they are closer to the National GOP than, say, John Stennis was to the National Democratic Party of his day.

The Republicans have always been more pragmatic than the Democrats in terms of viewing what there was to lose.

Biggest majorities by what standard?  They have a minority President and modest majorities in both houses of Congress, far below the biggest they've ever had.

Biggest majorities in terms of the totality of control of government at all levels. 

The White House.  Both Houses of Congress.  The Supreme Court.  27 States have GOP control of the Governor's mansion and the legislature, another 6 states have a Democratic Governor, but the entire legislature is Republican.  There are also a total of 32 GOP Governors.  The GOP elects most local officials in America; the exception, of course, are the large cities and some of the larger suburbs.

Outside of major cities and some of the suburbs, where do the Democrats enjoy hegemony? 

In 1992, the Republicans had trifectas in just three states, had just lost the Presidency, and didn't control either House of Congress. I guess that was the end of any major electoral successes for them, huh?

This made me lol

[Mr. Smith]

I fail to see this.  The GOP has it s biggest majorities ever.  And it's not like the Democratic Party of 1932-64 which depended a lot on its conservative wing for its numerical majorities. 

Roy Moore isn't that far away from mainstream conservative Republicans in anything but style.  The GOP only has a few Republicans in the Northeast that are "moderates", and even they are closer to the National GOP than, say, John Stennis was to the National Democratic Party of his day.

The Republicans have always been more pragmatic than the Democrats in terms of viewing what there was to lose.

Biggest majorities by what standard?  They have a minority President and modest majorities in both houses of Congress, far below the biggest they've ever had.

Biggest majorities in terms of the totality of control of government at all levels.  

The White House.  Both Houses of Congress.  The Supreme Court.  27 States have GOP control of the Governor's mansion and the legislature, another 6 states have a Democratic Governor, but the entire legislature is Republican.  There are also a total of 32 GOP Governors.  The GOP elects most local officials in America; the exception, of course, are the large cities and some of the larger suburbs.

Outside of major cities and some of the suburbs, where do the Democrats enjoy hegemony?  

Democrats were an absurdly good place before 1978 and 1980.

In 2009, the same thing was roughly true too. Then 2010 happened.

Thing about big majorities, gotta keep 'em in-tact, and overplaying the hand has had bad consequences. It's why 1994 and 2010, and even 2016 to an extent went as they did.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I guess progressives don't have enough power for it to even count as an intraparty civil war. But it's coming.

[Tartarus Sauce]

I guess progressives Berniecrats don't have enough power for it to even count as an intraparty civil war. But it's coming.

Fixed

[Fuzzy Bear]

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.

Sen. John Seymour (R-CA) was appointed by Gov. Pete Wilson; he was primaried in 1992 as an "unimaginative" pick.  He survived the primary, but lost to Dianne Feinstein, as California's demographics were changing rapidly.

In 1971, Sen. David Gambrell (D-GA) was appointed to the seat held by the late Richard Russell.  Gambrell had eleven (11) primary opponents in 1972, including Sam Nunn (the winner of the primary and general election) and S. Ernest Vandiver (Russell's nephew by marriage), who was the initial leading challenger to Gambrell.

Sen. Donald Stewart (D-AL) defeated appointed Sen. Maryon Allen in a Democratic Primary in 1978 for the full term.  Stewart then lost a primary in 1980 to Jim Folsom, who lost the general election to Republican Jeremiah Denton.

Ohio Sen. Howard Metzenbaum (D-OH) was appointed in 1973 to fill the vacancy caused by Nixon's appointment of Sen. William Saxbe (R-OH) as Attorney General.  Metzenbaum lost the 1974 Democratic primary to John Glenn; he was later elected in his own right to the Senate in 1976.  (Those two had an extremely frosty relationship until Metzenbaum came to Glenn's aid during his 1984 Presidential campaign; they were friends thereafter.)

Sen. Paul Hatfield (D-MT), was appointed in 1978 by Gov. Tom Judge (D-MT) to fill the unexpired term of Democratic Senator Lee Metcalf, who died in office.  Hatfield sought a full term, but was defeated in the Democratic primay by Rep. Max Baucus (D-MT) who won the seat in November. 

That Roy Moore would challenge the "incumbent" Sen. Luther Strange is hardly unusual.  Strange isn't really an incumbent; he's an unelected incumbent who hasn't really run up a record.  He was primaried under the premise that the voters ought to decide who represents them in the Senate.  I would suggest that any candidate that is appointed to a Senate seat who doesn't have overwhelming credentials and will face the voters not long after the appointment can EXPECT a primary; the chances are at least 50-50.  There have been other interim appointments over the years where Governors deliberately chose interim appointments with the promise that they would not seek the full term in the Senate.  Moore's primary challenge is in the vein of the others I cited; it's by no means a sign of any "civil war".  It's a NORMAL event in the NORMALITY of partisan politics.

[Statilius the Epicurean]

It's a "civil war" not because he defeated an incumbent but because he defeated an incumbent while openly attacking the Republican Senate majority leader.

[GeorgiaModerate]

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.

Sen. John Seymour (R-CA) was appointed by Gov. Pete Wilson; he was primaried in 1992 as an "unimaginative" pick.  He survived the primary, but lost to Dianne Feinstein, as California's demographics were changing rapidly.

In 1971, Sen. David Gambrell (D-GA) was appointed to the seat held by the late Richard Russell.  Gambrell had eleven (11) primary opponents in 1972, including Sam Nunn (the winner of the primary and general election) and S. Ernest Vandiver (Russell's nephew by marriage), who was the initial leading challenger to Gambrell.

Sen. Donald Stewart (D-AL) defeated appointed Sen. Maryon Allen in a Democratic Primary in 1978 for the full term.  Stewart then lost a primary in 1980 to Jim Folsom, who lost the general election to Republican Jeremiah Denton.

Ohio Sen. Howard Metzenbaum (D-OH) was appointed in 1973 to fill the vacancy caused by Nixon's appointment of Sen. William Saxbe (R-OH) as Attorney General.  Metzenbaum lost the 1974 Democratic primary to John Glenn; he was later elected in his own right to the Senate in 1976.  (Those two had an extremely frosty relationship until Metzenbaum came to Glenn's aid during his 1984 Presidential campaign; they were friends thereafter.)

Sen. Paul Hatfield (D-MT), was appointed in 1978 by Gov. Tom Judge (D-MT) to fill the unexpired term of Democratic Senator Lee Metcalf, who died in office.  Hatfield sought a full term, but was defeated in the Democratic primay by Rep. Max Baucus (D-MT) who won the seat in November. 

That Roy Moore would challenge the "incumbent" Sen. Luther Strange is hardly unusual.  Strange isn't really an incumbent; he's an unelected incumbent who hasn't really run up a record.  He was primaried under the premise that the voters ought to decide who represents them in the Senate.  I would suggest that any candidate that is appointed to a Senate seat who doesn't have overwhelming credentials and will face the voters not long after the appointment can EXPECT a primary; the chances are at least 50-50.  There have been other interim appointments over the years where Governors deliberately chose interim appointments with the promise that they would not seek the full term in the Senate.  Moore's primary challenge is in the vein of the others I cited; it's by no means a sign of any "civil war".  It's a NORMAL event in the NORMALITY of partisan politics.

I think this is a harbinger of a "civil war" not because of this race specifically (for the reasons detailed in your very informative post), but because it may be the first shot in a larger campaign against incumbent Republicans from the anti-establishment segment of the party.

[Mr. Morden]

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"?

[Fuzzy Bear]

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"?

None of the rival factions want to damage the "brand" to where it is relegated to minority status.  This is a restraining force on the bomb-throwers.