GOP Prepares for Intraparty Civil War

[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.

[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?  

[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.

[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.

[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.

Uhh do you think Trump cares about the GOP brand? The anti-GOP establishment faction are the people who were writing articles about how 2016 was the "Flight 93 election". They couldn't give a f--k about the Republican brand. 

Trump is tied into the GOP "brand" these days.  He gets that.

[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.

Uhh do you think Trump cares about the GOP brand? The anti-GOP establishment faction are the people who were writing articles about how 2016 was the "Flight 93 election". They couldn't give a f--k about the Republican brand. 

Trump is tied into the GOP "brand" these days.  He gets that.

Trump thinks that he is more popular than the GOP, and he's probably right.

IMO,  that's because Trump is smarter than the GOP.

I've been listening to the "Trump is doomed!" crowd for over 2 years now, and they've never been right.  Never.  I've got to believe that Trump sees things outside the box in ways others either can't wrap their minds around or ways that others deny work.

[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.

Uhh do you think Trump cares about the GOP brand? The anti-GOP establishment faction are the people who were writing articles about how 2016 was the "Flight 93 election". They couldn't give a f--k about the Republican brand. 

Trump is tied into the GOP "brand" these days.  He gets that.

Trump thinks that he is more popular than the GOP, and he's probably right.

IMO,  that's because Trump is smarter than the GOP.

I've been listening to the "Trump is doomed!" crowd for over 2 years now, and they've never been right.  Never.  I've got to believe that Trump sees things outside the box in ways others either can't wrap their minds around or ways that others deny work.

The problem isn't that Trump is a master genius, but rather that the conventional political class is so naive, out of touch, and stupid that they make him look clever in comparison.

Negative 1 is a larger number than negative 20.  Either way, Trump's heads and tails ahead of his critics.