4 ms·

I would challenge that narrative, because Trump clearly wasn't "The Party's candidate". He was a populist candidate, and populists gon spend (or at least say th

I would challenge that narrative, because Trump clearly wasn't "The Party's candidate". He was a populist candidate, and populists gon spend (or at least say they are). There still seem to be deep misgivings within his cabinet about the spending, but Trump seems to tend to get what he wants, and is quick to fire people who aren't making it happen, so...

CalChris 10y ago
By definition, Trump was the Republican Party's candidate.
- zimzam 10y ago
  This kind of pedantry provide no insight: Trump doesn't represent the small government wing of the party that opposed infrastructure spending
  - CalChris 10y ago
    So where did this small government wing go? You're saying that it existed before and that it opposed infrastructure spending doubtfully out of heartfelt principle. Now that the Republican Party candidate has been elected, does this wing still exist? If it exists then surely it can be depended on to resist any large government infrastructure spending that a populist candidate would propose. Surely this is the case.
    - shawn-furyan 10y ago
      With the scare quotes, I was drawing a distinction between the pre-Trump Republican establishment [meaning the incumbent Republican leadership along with the ideas that they stumped on to get into that position], and Trump. Trump is very different than the pre-Trump Republican establishment, and they clearly preferred other candidates (principally, Marco Rubio). There were clearly vast distances between the Pre-Trump Republican establishment, and the Republican electorate, and so it would make sense for the post-Trump Republican establishment to move in Trump's direction. That process is currently nascent, and the differences have, if reports are anything to go on, yet to have shaken out. Because of the way Trump operates, and because of the populist shift of the Republican electorate, I'd expect Trump to win most of the internal battles on spending. The winds are at his back. He will probably also flip many Republicans who previously positioned themselves as staunch fiscal hawks.
      - CalChris 10y ago
        So you're saying that the principled opposition by the small government wing will wilt in the face of populism, wind at his back and whatnot. You're right about this, except for the principled part.
        shawn-furyan 10y ago
        Close. I wasn't claiming that it was principled. I was claiming that it's what they stumped on in course to their leadership positions. Reversing themselves on those positions violates the narrative that they've been crafting, which probably has negative political consequences.
        CalChris 10y ago
        It wasn't principled and so the pivot to infrastructure spending will come without any political consequences because the Republican opposition was strictly partisan. It wasn't against the idea of improving infrastructure. It was against who was improving infrastructure. If Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice do something, that's OK. If Hillary does the same thing, it's treasonous. Got it?

CalChris 10y ago

By definition, Trump was the Republican Party's candidate.

zimzam 10y ago
This kind of pedantry provide no insight: Trump doesn't represent the small government wing of the party that opposed infrastructure spending
- CalChris 10y ago
  So where did this small government wing go? You're saying that it existed before and that it opposed infrastructure spending doubtfully out of heartfelt principle. Now that the Republican Party candidate has been elected, does this wing still exist? If it exists then surely it can be depended on to resist any large government infrastructure spending that a populist candidate would propose. Surely this is the case.
  - shawn-furyan 10y ago
    With the scare quotes, I was drawing a distinction between the pre-Trump Republican establishment [meaning the incumbent Republican leadership along with the ideas that they stumped on to get into that position], and Trump. Trump is very different than the pre-Trump Republican establishment, and they clearly preferred other candidates (principally, Marco Rubio). There were clearly vast distances between the Pre-Trump Republican establishment, and the Republican electorate, and so it would make sense for the post-Trump Republican establishment to move in Trump's direction. That process is currently nascent, and the differences have, if reports are anything to go on, yet to have shaken out. Because of the way Trump operates, and because of the populist shift of the Republican electorate, I'd expect Trump to win most of the internal battles on spending. The winds are at his back. He will probably also flip many Republicans who previously positioned themselves as staunch fiscal hawks.
    - CalChris 10y ago
      So you're saying that the principled opposition by the small government wing will wilt in the face of populism, wind at his back and whatnot. You're right about this, except for the principled part.
      - shawn-furyan 10y ago
        Close. I wasn't claiming that it was principled. I was claiming that it's what they stumped on in course to their leadership positions. Reversing themselves on those positions violates the narrative that they've been crafting, which probably has negative political consequences.
        CalChris 10y ago
        It wasn't principled and so the pivot to infrastructure spending will come without any political consequences because the Republican opposition was strictly partisan. It wasn't against the idea of improving infrastructure. It was against who was improving infrastructure. If Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice do something, that's OK. If Hillary does the same thing, it's treasonous. Got it?