538: Is the establishment losing control of the party?

[Mehmentum]

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/roundtable-is-the-republican-establishment-losing-control-of-the-party/

They talk a lot about Trump/Cruz/Carson, and the fact that the establishment friendly candidates are very divided this year.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So to be clear; Nate Silver thinks that there's about a 50% chance of a drawn out Clinton v. Obama style fight, a 20% that the nominee is decided in a 'smoke filled room', and a 10% chance of a genuine, brokered convention.

What do you guys think?

[xavier110]

I think it's way too early to tell. Several candidates could drop out tomorrow and have no effect on the race. The real question is, do a large number of candidates - say, Trump, Bush, Kasich, Cruz, Walker, Rubio, Huckabee, Carson - remain in the race through Super Tuesday? If so, this could get very very ugly.

[Kingpoleon]

Is it bad that I couldn't tell whether it meant Democratic or Republican by reading this thread's title?

[The Other Castro]

Is it bad that I couldn't tell whether it meant Democratic or Republican by reading this thread's title?

Yes.

[Nyvin]

Is it bad that I couldn't tell whether it meant Democratic or Republican by reading this thread's title?

uhh, yes?

[dudeabides]

A few comments here;

1) If the Republican party nominates one of the four crazies - Trump, Santorum, Carson, or Cruz, we deserve to lose. It's as simple as that. None of these guys has any appeal to centrist voters and three of the four (I'm excluding Carson on this) are hateful and angry individuals who don't care about the country, only their own ego. But, that isn't the establishment losing control because the establishment only controls money and generally speaking, moderate candidates who win the votes of the moderate wing of the party are also the establishment candidate. The establishment lost control in 1964 and the party lost in a landslide. Barry Goldwater was not a crazy like Trump, Santorum, Carson, and Cruz.

2) Every several decades, political parties end up in the political wilderness and in the last 100 years, the GOP has been there far more than the Democrats. The GOP was in the political wilderness from 1932-1952 with Roosevelt and Truman. They were again in the 1960s, and they have been since 2008. The Democrats were in the political wilderness in the 1980s, and under George W. Bush from 2000-2008. When I think political wilderness, I mean hungry for a win, but unsure how to win or what direction the party is headed in. Generally speaking, when the party finds someone who party regulars like, but also has appeal to others, that person saves the party. Dwight Eisenhower and Ronald Reagan fit this bill for the Republicans, Bill Clinton fit the bill for the Democrats.

3) With 17 candidates in the GOP field, of course there is going to be a fight for the nomination. My theory has been that Jeb Bush would be the establishment pick and several others would divide the rest of the votes. So far, it seems that is not the case. The September 16 debate is extremely critical for Governor Bush. If he holds steady like he did in the last debate or performs poorly like he did in the New Hampshire forum, the establishment will start looking at Marco Rubio and John Kasich. If he does well, he will probably win over some establishment folks who are not impressed so far. Bush is doing something that seemed to work for his father in 1988, he is running a general election campaign during the primaries. It's a bit of a gamble, Rudy Giuliani did the same thing in 2008 and he came in 5th place. Trump's numbers are far higher than I expected, I figured he'd fade away by now. I attribute this to the excessive media coverage, his name I.D., and to low information voters backing him. On the Democratic side, I believe Senator Sanders is doing well because the base doesn't trust Hillary Clinton. They view her as too calculating and out of touch with them on a personal level and on issues.

[EliteLX]

A few comments here;

1) If the Republican party nominates one of the four crazies - Trump, Santorum, Carson, or Cruz, we deserve to lose. It's as simple as that. None of these guys has any appeal to centrist voters and three of the four (I'm excluding Carson on this) are hateful and angry individuals who don't care about the country, only their own ego. But, that isn't the establishment losing control because the establishment only controls money and generally speaking, moderate candidates who win the votes of the moderate wing of the party are also the establishment candidate. The establishment lost control in 1964 and the party lost in a landslide. Barry Goldwater was not a crazy like Trump, Santorum, Carson, and Cruz.

2) Every several decades, political parties end up in the political wilderness and in the last 100 years, the GOP has been there far more than the Democrats. The GOP was in the political wilderness from 1932-1952 with Roosevelt and Truman. They were again in the 1960s, and they have been since 2008. The Democrats were in the political wilderness in the 1980s, and under George W. Bush from 2000-2008. When I think political wilderness, I mean hungry for a win, but unsure how to win or what direction the party is headed in. Generally speaking, when the party finds someone who party regulars like, but also has appeal to others, that person saves the party. Dwight Eisenhower and Ronald Reagan fit this bill for the Republicans, Bill Clinton fit the bill for the Democrats.

3) With 17 candidates in the GOP field, of course there is going to be a fight for the nomination. My theory has been that Jeb Bush would be the establishment pick and several others would divide the rest of the votes. So far, it seems that is not the case. The September 16 debate is extremely critical for Governor Bush. If he holds steady like he did in the last debate or performs poorly like he did in the New Hampshire forum, the establishment will start looking at Marco Rubio and John Kasich. If he does well, he will probably win over some establishment folks who are not impressed so far. Bush is doing something that seemed to work for his father in 1988, he is running a general election campaign during the primaries. It's a bit of a gamble, Rudy Giuliani did the same thing in 2008 and he came in 5th place. Trump's numbers are far higher than I expected, I figured he'd fade away by now. I attribute this to the excessive media coverage, his name I.D., and to low information voters backing him. On the Democratic side, I believe Senator Sanders is doing well because the base doesn't trust Hillary Clinton. They view her as too calculating and out of touch with them on a personal level and on issues.

Dudeabides,

normally I am one to agree with you. I say this from a standpoint of a non-Cruz supporter: you can't label Cruz as a crazy who has no care for his country and only his own ego. I believe Cruz is single-handedly the candidate of the GOP who cares most about his country, despite me not wishing for him to win the nomination or supporting him.

If Cruz had electability he would be my first pick. He has nuts of steel, isn't a loon or a screaming 13 year old, and truly cares about what he believes and will fight to the end to defend it. He isn't even reasonably the same as some of the other nutjobs, such as Trump. Cruz is extremely humble as well.

[dudeabides]

A few comments here;

1) If the Republican party nominates one of the four crazies - Trump, Santorum, Carson, or Cruz, we deserve to lose. It's as simple as that. None of these guys has any appeal to centrist voters and three of the four (I'm excluding Carson on this) are hateful and angry individuals who don't care about the country, only their own ego. But, that isn't the establishment losing control because the establishment only controls money and generally speaking, moderate candidates who win the votes of the moderate wing of the party are also the establishment candidate. The establishment lost control in 1964 and the party lost in a landslide. Barry Goldwater was not a crazy like Trump, Santorum, Carson, and Cruz.

2) Every several decades, political parties end up in the political wilderness and in the last 100 years, the GOP has been there far more than the Democrats. The GOP was in the political wilderness from 1932-1952 with Roosevelt and Truman. They were again in the 1960s, and they have been since 2008. The Democrats were in the political wilderness in the 1980s, and under George W. Bush from 2000-2008. When I think political wilderness, I mean hungry for a win, but unsure how to win or what direction the party is headed in. Generally speaking, when the party finds someone who party regulars like, but also has appeal to others, that person saves the party. Dwight Eisenhower and Ronald Reagan fit this bill for the Republicans, Bill Clinton fit the bill for the Democrats.

3) With 17 candidates in the GOP field, of course there is going to be a fight for the nomination. My theory has been that Jeb Bush would be the establishment pick and several others would divide the rest of the votes. So far, it seems that is not the case. The September 16 debate is extremely critical for Governor Bush. If he holds steady like he did in the last debate or performs poorly like he did in the New Hampshire forum, the establishment will start looking at Marco Rubio and John Kasich. If he does well, he will probably win over some establishment folks who are not impressed so far. Bush is doing something that seemed to work for his father in 1988, he is running a general election campaign during the primaries. It's a bit of a gamble, Rudy Giuliani did the same thing in 2008 and he came in 5th place. Trump's numbers are far higher than I expected, I figured he'd fade away by now. I attribute this to the excessive media coverage, his name I.D., and to low information voters backing him. On the Democratic side, I believe Senator Sanders is doing well because the base doesn't trust Hillary Clinton. They view her as too calculating and out of touch with them on a personal level and on issues.

Dudeabides,

normally I am one to agree with you. But you can not label Cruz as a crazy who has no care for his country only his own ego. I believe Cruz is single-handedly the candidate of the GOP who cares most about his country, despite me wishing for him to win the nomination or supporting him.

 If Cruz had electability he would be my first pick. He has nuts of steel, isn't a loot or a screaming 13 year old, and truly cares about what he believes and will fight to the end to defend it. He isn't even reasonably the same as some of the other loons, such as Trump.

I respect your views and appreciate your intelligence. But I have to disagree on Ted Cruz. It isn't so much that I think he's wrong, I agree with him on most issues. But the fact of the matter is, he can't win a general election. He might be able to at a future date, but not today. The honorable thing for him to do would be to remain in the U.S. Senate since our success as a nation depends on a Republican not named Donald Trump winning in 2016. Also, I don't believe shutting the government down was responsible. He says and repeats things like the "Washington Cartel" over and over again which has absolutely no significance, the guy has spent his entire time in D.C. which isn't long fighting people as opposed to forging consensus that could produce most of, if not all of, what we Republicans want.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Is it bad that I couldn't tell whether it meant Democratic or Republican by reading this thread's title?

Nope! Hopefully the establishment loses control of both parties.

[pbrower2a]

The Establishment can afford to lose once. One of three things happen:

1. The maverick nominee loses in the general election, and the Establishment consolidates power again -- see the results of Goldwater and McGovern losses followed by Nixon and Carter wins.

2. The maverick nominee wins in the general election and shows why the Establishment sensibilities are right while President. I'm not sure that we have ever seen this.

3. The maverick candidate wins in the general election and has a successful Presidency -- one successful enough that he can poach what used to be members of the opposition Party and create a new coalition -- and redefine what "the Establishment" means.