Breaking: Ryan expected to end standoff with Trump

[Ronnie]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-05-25/ryan-said-to-tell-confidants-he-s-ready-to-end-trump-standoff

[Virginiá]

What a strong, principled man. Bow before your master, Mr. Speaker

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

If we don't get any R->D or R->I party-switchers among actual elected officials by the end of the year, then NeverTrump was a load of crock.

Charlie Baker is pretty clear he's going to be one. Larry Hogan is dodging the question atm.

[Green Line]

Pathetic! No backbone.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Voting for your party in all but the most minor races is basically your duty if you're a republican elected official. The hesitation this time is notable, but in the end #NEVERTRUMP among notable R's is the bushes, Ben Sasse, Meg Whitman, Charlie Baker, likely Mark Kirk, likely Susan Collins, and maybe Larry Hogan. It's not some huge group, and they're mostly from uncompetitive states. (I expect Romney to give in sooner or later) The question, however, is how big of a group it is among the entire republican electorate.

[Vosem]

If we don't get any R->D or R->I party-switchers among actual elected officials by the end of the year, then NeverTrump was a load of crock.

This I disagree with (even if I did change my own avatar). The lesson of the primaries was that a majority of Republican voters wanted anyone but Trump to be their nominee, and the lesson of the congressional primaries so far seems to be that Trumpism is more of a hindrance than a help in your typical Republican primary (though this effect may simply be due to it being resorted to most often by desperate, losing politicians, resulting in an artificially poor record). Either way, the party will continue to be a viable method to elect true conservatives to office after Trump's defeat this November.

As for Ryan, I sympathize with his position; he needs to maneuver so that he can continue to legislate conservatively after Trump's defeat, and to ensure the consequences of his nomination are limited to the short-term. I would not do as the article seems to suggest he intends to, but if he does I understand his motivation and would not hold it against him.

[Ronnie]

You might want to read this article, Vosem: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/05/2016-election-realignment-partisan-political-party-policy-democrats-republicans-politics-213909

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

this is a story is a big nothing at this point.   Some unnamed source says Ryan is uncomfortable with the current situation, as if we couldn't guess that already.  Doesn't mean he is going to be endorsing him.

[Vosem]

You might want to read this article, Vosem: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/05/2016-election-realignment-partisan-political-party-policy-democrats-republicans-politics-213909

I already have. The article makes some very good points (it's absolutely correct about the culture war being basically over and the country moving on from it) but fails to make certain other observations (he mentions that the young lean left now, but the lack of support for Trump, and nationalistic politics in general, among Republican-voting under-45-year-olds is not mentioned). The truth is the party system the article sets forth would be a sustainable one now, had things evolved differently 30 years ago, but it couldn't happen in 10-15 years because the internationalist party would have a permanent majority.

The truth is that nationalistic politics is a shrinking minority within the Republican Party. The future is one where the Democrats move to the economic left (until Sanders is basically a mainstream, typical party member), while Republicans essentially stay where they are, becoming a libertarian-ish party. The Democrats occasionally use minority, especially black, identity politics, while Republicans continue to depend on white evangelical voters (abortion as an issue persists far into the future, even as LGBTQ equality ceases to be debated and is written in the history books). Trump is seen as a brief anomaly and gets a paragraph or two in the section about the 2010s where they talk about the evolving political system (Ron Paul and Bernie Sanders are both likely to be discussed in more detail; Hillary is talked about in the section on her Presidency).

[Ronnie]

Are you talking about the same Ron Paul who ran two failed campaigns and couldn't extend his movement beyond the Kool-Aid drinking corners of the internet?  The same Ron Paul whose son dropped out after getting less than five percent of the vote in Iowa?

I like that you're optimistic and idealistic, but color me skeptical, to say the least!  I won't rule out every one of your predictions, but even assuming Trump and his ideology completely fizzles the moment he loses, to suggest that Ron Paul, of all people, will gain more coverage in the history books than a George Wallace-esque candidate who hijacked a national party seems a bit far-fetched to me.

[RFayette]

You might want to read this article, Vosem: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/05/2016-election-realignment-partisan-political-party-policy-democrats-republicans-politics-213909

I already have. The article makes some very good points (it's absolutely correct about the culture war being basically over and the country moving on from it) but fails to make certain other observations (he mentions that the young lean left now, but the lack of support for Trump, and nationalistic politics in general, among Republican-voting under-45-year-olds is not mentioned). The truth is the party system the article sets forth would be a sustainable one now, had things evolved differently 30 years ago, but it couldn't happen in 10-15 years because the internationalist party would have a permanent majority.

The truth is that nationalistic politics is a shrinking minority within the Republican Party. The future is one where the Democrats move to the economic left (until Sanders is basically a mainstream, typical party member), while Republicans essentially stay where they are, becoming a libertarian-ish party. The Democrats occasionally use minority, especially black, identity politics, while Republicans continue to depend on white evangelical voters (abortion as an issue persists far into the future, even as LGBTQ equality ceases to be debated and is written in the history books). Trump is seen as a brief anomaly and gets a paragraph or two in the section about the 2010s where they talk about the evolving political system (Ron Paul and Bernie Sanders are both likely to be discussed in more detail; Hillary is talked about in the section on her Presidency).

Republicans are going to move to the center on economic policy in the future, though I agree with everything else you said.  I just don't see candidates running on cutting the top marginal tax rate (much) or deregulating Wall Street by repealing Dodd-Frank or if so, it won't be very successful.  George W Bush's legacy is still haunting the party with young voters.

[Vosem]

Are you talking about the same Ron Paul who ran two failed campaigns and couldn't extend his movement beyond the Kool-Aid drinking corners of the internet?  The same Ron Paul whose son dropped out after getting less than five percent of the vote in Iowa?

I like that you're optimistic and idealistic, but color me skeptical, to say the least!  I won't rule out every one of your predictions, but even assuming Trump and his ideology completely fizzles the moment he loses, to suggest that Ron Paul, of all people, will gain more coverage in the history books than a George Wallace-esque candidate who hijacked a national party seems a bit far-fetched to me.

It makes sense because Ron Paul, while personally unelectable, in the patterns of his support clearly heralded an actual shift in the Republican Party (towards emphasis on fiscal issues, away from combative social issues), and he'll be recognized as a harbinger of the shift after it is finished (however similar or dissimilar the final product ends up being to Paul). There isn't much to say about Trump (what does a history book now have to say about Wallace, besides a sentence or two dedicated to his unsuccessful run? RFK, who was never the nominee, gets more coverage because he represented an actual shift in the party).

I wouldn't call my predictions optimistic. I supported McCain in 2008 and Romney in 2012 (in the primaries, that is); I am much more interventionist than I perceive the future of the Republican Party to be, and I find the Democratic future distinctly horrifying (I'd much prefer the current, Obama/Clinton party to what I think the Democrats will be like 15 years from now). I'm just calling things the way I see them.

[RFayette]

Are you talking about the same Ron Paul who ran two failed campaigns and couldn't extend his movement beyond the Kool-Aid drinking corners of the internet?  The same Ron Paul whose son dropped out after getting less than five percent of the vote in Iowa?

I like that you're optimistic and idealistic, but color me skeptical, to say the least!  I won't rule out every one of your predictions, but even assuming Trump and his ideology completely fizzles the moment he loses, to suggest that Ron Paul, of all people, will gain more coverage in the history books than a George Wallace-esque candidate who hijacked a national party seems a bit far-fetched to me.

It makes sense because Ron Paul, while personally unelectable, in the patterns of his support clearly heralded an actual shift in the Republican Party (towards emphasis on fiscal issues, away from combative social issues), and he'll be recognized as a harbinger of the shift after it is finished (however similar or dissimilar the final product ends up being to Paul). There isn't much to say about Trump (what does a history book now have to say about Wallace, besides a sentence or two dedicated to his unsuccessful run? RFK, who was never the nominee, gets more coverage because he represented an actual shift in the party).

I wouldn't call my predictions optimistic. I supported McCain in 2008 and Romney in 2012 (in the primaries, that is); I am much more interventionist than I perceive the future of the Republican Party to be, and I find the Democratic future distinctly horrifying (I'd much prefer the current, Obama/Clinton party to what I think the Democrats will be like 15 years from now). I'm just calling things the way I see them.

I agree with you that the GOP will pursue a more libertarian philosophy with respect to entitlement spending (and overall government spending) as well as foreign policy (albeit still supporting more military spending to a lesser extent), but I really don't think the GOP will push too much for top-bracket marginal income tax rates or deregulation of financial services.

[Santander]

What is the role of elected officials? To never change their positions and tell the voters to take it or leave it? Or is it to serve your constituents, and if they demand something different from what you are offering, to give it to them? I think it should be the latter, and if the nominating base of the Republican Party has carried Trump to victory from what was probably the largest and deepest primary field in history, shouldn't party leaders accept that that's what their supporters want and to give it to them? If you refuse to give the base what they want, you shouldn't be a leader of that party.

This would be one of the few times in his life when Paul Ryan did the right thing.

[Ronnie]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If that's the case, then the party would go against the views of its base.  Quote from the Politico article:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Ronnie]

Also, let me add: one problem I have with the assumption that the Sanders constituency will eventually take over the Democratic Party is that it assumes the views of his young supporters will not change over time.  The reality is that many of them are in a financially anxious period of their lives, buried in student loans and whatnot.  Many of them will de-radicalize once marriage, kids, and white collar jobs domesticate them.

The anti-war contingent in the Democratic Party hasn't exactly endured in a significant way, even though it was immensely popular on college campuses during the 60s.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Can't wait to Rick Wilson adds him to the list of the purged as well. Pathetic on the part of the cucks.

[Xing]

NeverTrump is such a joke. Pathetic, partisan wimps.

[Mr. Morden]

NeverTrump is such a joke.

Ryan isn't NeverTrump and he never has been.  NeverTrump means that you vow not to vote for Trump in the general election.  Ryan never did that.

[Hermit For Peace]

If I was in Paul Ryan's shoes, I'd be doing the exact same thing he's doing. No way could my basic honest principles back such a trash-talker with such obvious low character. I'd rather step down as Speaker and resume my life of personal integrity than back such a loser as Trump.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/25/politics/paul-ryan-no-endorsement-donald-trump/index.html

[ag]

If I was in Paul Ryan's shoes, I'd be doing the exact same thing he's doing. No way could my basic honest principles back such a trash-talker with such obvious low character. I'd rather step down as Speaker and resume my life of personal integrity than back such a loser as Trump.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/25/politics/paul-ryan-no-endorsement-donald-trump/index.html

So, seems like another trumper telling a trump?

[Phony Moderate]

Ryan caved in against Uncle Joe in the 2012 Veep debate too. He can't handle any form of High Energy.

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

All libertarians are jokes and will never have a voice in the policies of this country. Thank God for keeping this country relatively safe from such a cancer.