Republicans Broke the House—Will Voters Care?

Spoiler alert, no they won’t.
What the last 7 years has proven is that personal interests Trump (no pun intended) everything., Decency, common sense, values, and even democracy itself. Who will fix my problems, by any means necessary is all that matters.

 

We got the war funding and weapon sales over the line (and other security state measures like reupping FISA), so its not broken, really. Real American priorities are 100% on track as always. Bipartisanship is alive and well in the empire.

 

I am seeing signs that the crazies are being put to the fringe where they belong. Both parties have them but they have been ascendant with trump.

 

This is a question I wrestle with all the time. How do others perceive our current national situation as so bad that they are willing to blow everything up that has worked for decades. Not working perfectly, and in need of revision, but bad enough to blow up without having a realistic replacement

 

I agree and get the sentiment but the GOP has no interest in fixing anyone’s problems. They are only interested in making you afraid and telling you who to blame because that my friends is how you win elections.

 

I've posted this before in other threads - the most dysfunctional, least effective majority in history. But many republicans don't care - they'll keep blaming democrats for everything.

 

They are obviously dysfunctional in many ways (especially on the leadership question), but what would constitute being effective here? They control one chamber of congress, and that usually means being a veto point on most legislation, doing investigations, using the subpoena and doing message voting that has no chance of moving on. On those counts they have been 'effective.' Did the Dem house majority in 2018 deliver anything different other than less drama over leadership?

 

Interesting question and it may hinge on whether voters turn out for trump or Biden. Neither would be a “new” president but most new presidents have same party control of Congress until the next midterm election. The exceptions have all been Republicans.

Single-party control in Washington is common at the beginning of a new presidency, but tends not to last long
In an era marked by deep and intense partisan divisions, single-party control of the executive and legislative branches might seem rare. But unified government at the beginning of a president’s first term has actually been the norm, especially for Democratic presidents, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of data going back to the 56th Congress (1899-1901). In fact, it’s been the case for 16 of 21 presidents dating to Theodore Roosevelt. The five exceptions were all Republicans: George W. and George H.W. Bush, Ronald Reagan, Gerald Ford and Richard Nixon.

 

MAGA is destroying the pub party

 

"destroyed"

 

They are somehow succeeding in turning a party for oligarchs, bosses and religious culture warriors into a party for oligarchs, bosses and religious culture warriors.

 

Is the question “will the republicans care what some bedwetter at The Bullwark thinks”? The answer to that is a very clear NO!!

 

Will they care? Probably not, because most Republicans clearly like this, and enough Democrats are throwing their usual special interest / identity politics temper tantrums about Palestine, Taking away their tic tock, trans rights or something else irrelevant such that they either stay home or vote for a 3rd party turd such that Trump wins. And then they will go out and protest the result.

 

Trying to reign in spending.

Spending is popular.

Trying to slow it down (nm reversing it) is chaotic.

You are right on one fatal count--the pibs have capitulated at every turn, especially when it comes to spending.

That doesn't make the ones who want to spend more, faster, thr gooder guys.

Just makes the capitulators, the not as bad guys.

 

The thing that true conservatives still can’t seem to grasp is that they are a minority group. In the end they have to capitulate, because if you won’t compromise there isn’t another alternative short of tearing the country down to get your way.
The ironic thing is that they could be much further towards their goals with compromise (outside of what the USSC has given them). But the base won’t allow it, it’s seen as surrender instead of a path to long term victory. It would also show them as the adults in the room and get them back towards a majority party. But again, it’s no bueno.
The Dems have won the popular vote in 7 of the last 8 presidential elections, despite their own dysfunction. That should be a clear warning sign, but it doesn’t seem to register.

 

Honestly, I think they need to lose this election to wake up and dump Trump. And they will lose this election. My only hope (as an actual conservative) is that it’s bad enough to make necessary reforms but not so bad that we end up with irreparable socialist damage.

 

I have to question anyone's claim to being a "true conservative"--who disputes the need for radical change in an environment where trillion dollars deficits are considered no biggie; where the GDP being half the national debt--for now--is not only acceptable, but quite literally, the best it will ever be...

Worse still, has the audacity to condescend down to those who have long felt the need for radical change, and deem us, the faux conservatives.

I suppose when the *liberals* are the status quo party, seeking to hold the line in so far as keeping us on a suicidal trajectory...then I guess those seeking radical change--ie radical divergence fron such trajectory--must be the radical fringe, and thereby surrender our claim to "conservatism".

Cest la vie.

 

National debt at 2x the GDP, and growing, is a far scarier sign than popularity polls.

If the majority is hell bent on national suicide, and we can't stop it, cest la vie. Doesn't make joining the suicidal cause, virtuous.

 

That’s kind of the point though and a good example. When they propose cuts, it’s slash and burn on what the Dems care about and zero cuts for the military, the border, farm subsidies, or anything else republicans care about. Which would be ok for an opening argument maybe, but it’s always seemingly non negotiable. And they lose that war every time, but keep fighting it. And when they’re in charge they don’t even try until it’s 3 weeks before the budget deadline and try brinksmanship, which never works either because the country sees it for what it is.
Roll up your sleeves and do the hard work of give and take, and condition your base to understand that winning doesn’t have to mean complete and utter capitulation by the other side. If you got a 2 or 3 percent hike this year in social programs vs. the five percent or more that will come when you lose the battle again, that’s a win. Against inflation that’s a reduction. But for the populist base that’s not enough, so theater wins them more votes than actual work.