Is the Republican Party now dead?

[Kingpoleon]

They are set to lose every statewide office in Virginia and New Jersey, perform horribly in mayoral elections, potentially lose a seat in Alabama, and every single Senate seat with just two or three exceptions next year has a chance of going Democratic. Northam should not be set to win by 7-8 points so easily, esp. considering Gillespie's amazingly strong ground game and campaign infrastructure. This impossibly large Democratic victory in Virginia is the beginning of the end of the GOP.  Northam will almost certainly be at the top of the ticket in 2020 and crush Trump in an absolutely massive landslide, probably by at least 7%.

Tribute to MTT's prediction

[uti2]

The old GOP died in 2008. The Tea Party movement was a quasi-populist third-party style reaction.

[TPIG]

Just like the GOP was dead after 2006 and 2008 and 2012? Even if the GOP gets completely wiped out in 2018, you can't say it's dead. The Democrats were wiped out in 2010 and 2014 and severely underperformed in 2016, but they're certainly not dead. The pendulum swings back and forth. Don't be so hyperbolic.

[uti2]

Just like the GOP was dead after 2006 and 2008 and 2012? Even if the GOP gets completely wiped out in 2018, you can't say it's dead. The Democrats were wiped out in 2010 and 2014 and severely underperformed in 2016, but they're certainly not dead. The pendulum swings back and forth. Don't be so hyperbolic.

The Establishment/Clinton faction of the Democratic party more or less retained the total control of the party institutions between 2000-2016. In contrast, the Bush faction of the GOP was marginalized by the Tea Party movement.

[Sir Mohamed]

The Republican Party largely died in 1994. It is now a Tea Party. And the Tea Party is (sadly) alive. I hope the GOP comes back to its roots and and dudes like Kasich, Baker or Schwarzenegger will be the dominant force.

[Orser67]

It's certainly not dead. But I think it has very serious divisions, major demographic problems, and is cursed with an incompetent leader at the top. It's entirely possible to imagine it generally being in the minority for much of the next few decades, much like Republicans from 1932-1968 and Democrats from 1860 to 1932.

[beaver2.0]

Certainly not.

[HAnnA MArin County]

No. The ones in vulnerable districts/states will probably throw Trump under the bus in 2018 but will be kissing the ground he walks on come 2020. If anything, it just shows that Trumpism without Trump doesn't work.

[RINO Tom]

No. The ones in vulnerable districts/states will probably throw Trump under the bus in 2018 but will be kissing the ground he walks on come 2020. If anything, it just shows that Trumpism without Trump doesn't work.

I have been repeatedly mocked for this by both Democrats (who think I'm unrealistically imagining a future GOP too much to my liking, which annoys them) and "Trumpists" (who think I'm, well, doing the same thing, and it annoys them because it's as if I'm dismissing these voters' importance to the party), but I just REALLY don't see "Trumpists" as a coherent ideological bloc in the GOP post-Trump.  "Trumpists" doesn't even have a real definition, and most of Trump's supporters are just Republicans who see it as crucial to "stick together" and not let Democrats get any power, whatever that takes.  I think it's a real analytical mistake to assume there are millions of Bannonites out there ready to make the GOP a truly paleoconservative party in the future ... Trump has a unique appeal, and it's crazy to say that all of his supporters would support a different candidate with the same views/attitudes as loyally in a future primary, IMO.

[beaver2.0]

No. The ones in vulnerable districts/states will probably throw Trump under the bus in 2018 but will be kissing the ground he walks on come 2020. If anything, it just shows that Trumpism without Trump doesn't work.

I have been repeatedly mocked for this by both Democrats (who think I'm unrealistically imagining a future GOP too much to my liking, which annoys them) and "Trumpists" (who think I'm, well, doing the same thing, and it annoys them because it's as if I'm dismissing these voters' importance to the party), but I just REALLY don't see "Trumpists" as a coherent ideological bloc in the GOP post-Trump.  "Trumpists" doesn't even have a real definition, and most of Trump's supporters are just Republicans who see it as crucial to "stick together" and not let Democrats get any power, whatever that takes.  I think it's a real analytical mistake to assume there are millions of Bannonites out there ready to make the GOP a truly paleoconservative party in the future ... Trump has a unique appeal, and it's crazy to say that all of his supporters would support a different candidate with the same views/attitudes as loyally in a future primary, IMO.

I'm with you 100% on this.  Trump is a unique guy.  I can't really see anyone coming along and doing exactly what he did.  I can see people emulating his style (tweeting habits, especially) and winning some lower level races, however.

[dw93]

No. The ones in vulnerable districts/states will probably throw Trump under the bus in 2018 but will be kissing the ground he walks on come 2020. If anything, it just shows that Trumpism without Trump doesn't work.

I have been repeatedly mocked for this by both Democrats (who think I'm unrealistically imagining a future GOP too much to my liking, which annoys them) and "Trumpists" (who think I'm, well, doing the same thing, and it annoys them because it's as if I'm dismissing these voters' importance to the party), but I just REALLY don't see "Trumpists" as a coherent ideological bloc in the GOP post-Trump.  "Trumpists" doesn't even have a real definition, and most of Trump's supporters are just Republicans who see it as crucial to "stick together" and not let Democrats get any power, whatever that takes.  I think it's a real analytical mistake to assume there are millions of Bannonites out there ready to make the GOP a truly paleoconservative party in the future ... Trump has a unique appeal, and it's crazy to say that all of his supporters would support a different candidate with the same views/attitudes as loyally in a future primary, IMO.

I agree with this, which is why I think the Democrats are fools to think they can dump the rust belt and win the swing belt due to demographic changes, which aren't happening that fast and most likely won't be enough in states like Florida and Arizona where white boomers and xrs are/will be going to retire. Obama/Trump voters aren't going to benefit at all from Trump, so unless the Democrats nominate someone worse than Hillary, they'll start voting Democratic again, and there's a good chance that they will next year to.

If Trump loses in 2020, the GOP will most likely spend the early part of the 2020s returning to what it was from 1980-2008. If that succeeds in 2022 and 2024, they'll stay that way for a while, if it doesn't, IMHO they'll either go in a more libertarian direction, or become the center right party that they were under Eisenhower, Nixon, and Ford.

[Virginiá]

Wow TNVol wasn't kidding when he said this would be immediately said on Atlas

The GOP isn't dead. Period. My likely guess is that the pendulum swings back hard against the GOP and a lot of the electoral success they enjoyed under Obama is rolled back, at least in somewhat competitive areas. This would be pretty satisfying to watch as a Democrat, as we have had to watch quite a lot of gloating about how "Democrats lost 1,000 seats under Obama..." from Republicans and liberals who were/are upset with the direction of the party.

I next think year we'll see that the Republican Party's status across the country isn't as ironclad as previously thought, and the effects on redistricting will cause a lot of their power to unravel in the 2020s. But make no mistake, they are not dead. Not even close.

The most appropriate answer to this question for any political party is always No.

[Santander]

No, it is now a Trumpian worker's party.

[Statilius the Epicurean]

No. The ones in vulnerable districts/states will probably throw Trump under the bus in 2018 but will be kissing the ground he walks on come 2020. If anything, it just shows that Trumpism without Trump doesn't work.

I have been repeatedly mocked for this by both Democrats (who think I'm unrealistically imagining a future GOP too much to my liking, which annoys them) and "Trumpists" (who think I'm, well, doing the same thing, and it annoys them because it's as if I'm dismissing these voters' importance to the party), but I just REALLY don't see "Trumpists" as a coherent ideological bloc in the GOP post-Trump.  "Trumpists" doesn't even have a real definition, and most of Trump's supporters are just Republicans who see it as crucial to "stick together" and not let Democrats get any power, whatever that takes.  I think it's a real analytical mistake to assume there are millions of Bannonites out there ready to make the GOP a truly paleoconservative party in the future ... Trump has a unique appeal, and it's crazy to say that all of his supporters would support a different candidate with the same views/attitudes as loyally in a future primary, IMO.

You've unintentionally hit on the fundamental point that Trump is an ordinary Republican, so "Trumpism without Trump" is just an ordinary Republican agenda. Romney ran as a proto-Trump, Bush's first term agenda was proto-Trumpism in action, running race/crimebaiting culture war campaigns is what HW Bush did in '88 and Reagan was a movie-star outsider without firm ideological moorings who liked cutting deals etc.. Red avatars pick on you because you're caught up in a mythology of the "reasonable Republican party" which never existed

[Deblano]

In our two-party FPTP system, parties rarely die. They rebrand.

[twenty42]

Of course it’s dead. I could see the Republicans overcoming 1932 and 1964, but losing the presidency in a landslide is a drop in the bucket compared to losing an off-year gubernatorial race.

Just like Democrats were dead forever after Bob McDonnell won Virginia in 2009.

[Mr. Smith]

Wasn't actually alive for its existence, it died in 1980 though and was on the death spire in 1976.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Wasn't actually alive for its existence, it died in 1980 though and was on the death spire in 1976.

Actually no the Republican Party was revived during those years, as the McKinley wing of the party took back control of the party it lost in the 30s and 40s.

[Blue3]

This thread is parody, people.

[Cassandra]

This thread is parody, people.

It's a fun question anyway.

Certainly the Republican party is in the wilderness. My expectation is that the GOP will reemerge in the next few years with an explicitly formulated White Nationalist ideology. They may not win many elections fairly, but they aren't going away. Their base is too fervent for the Republican party to die. What is happening now is the old leaders, the Limbaugh's and Hannity's, are being replaced by people like Alex Jones.

[Suburbia]

Just like the GOP was dead after 2006 and 2008 and 2012? Even if the GOP gets completely wiped out in 2018, you can't say it's dead. The Democrats were wiped out in 2010 and 2014 and severely underperformed in 2016, but they're certainly not dead. The pendulum swings back and forth. Don't be so hyperbolic.

[Roronoa D. Law]

Politically No. Ethically and morally then yes it died a long time ago.

[Kingpoleon]

This thread is parody, people.

What gave it away? Did you read my little note at the end?

[Blue3]

Just commenting on the people taking it seriously, it's hilarious.

[Pennsylvania Deplorable]

Just like the GOP was dead after 2006 and 2008 and 2012? Even if the GOP gets completely wiped out in 2018, you can't say it's dead. The Democrats were wiped out in 2010 and 2014 and severely underperformed in 2016, but they're certainly not dead. The pendulum swings back and forth. Don't be so hyperbolic.

2006, 2008, 2010, and 2014 were WAY bigger than this. Democrats won the governorship of two blue states. Not a big deal. Republicans were at their highest level of governors and state legislatures since the 1920s after 2014. They're bound to lose some ground, but the 2018 Senate map offers few opportunities for democrats. I also wouldn't call Alabama for democrats yet unless there's actual proof of Moore's wrongdoing. Word of mouth about an event decades ago magically coming out a month before the election is not proof of anything.