3 ms·

OP: > they don't have any way to discipline elected officials who don't toe the line. Me: > Sure they do There isn't any debating this. You can see these th

OP: > they don't have any way to discipline elected officials who don't toe the line. Me: > Sure they do There isn't any debating this. You can see these things play out for yourself. Senator Tillis is a recent example.

PaulHoule 1y ago
Trump is an unusual factor, he's able to kick a lot of people's asses who other people couldn't kick. The same people who got attacked on Jan 6 couldn't discipline him for that. My understanding is that since the Tea Party, Republican house members haven't lasted as long as house members usually have because they either decide the juice isn't worth the squeeze or get primary challengers. Bigger picture, Tillis resigning is bad news for the Republicans in the sense that, in the current climate, he's likely to be replaced by an extremist just when people are going to be sick and tired of the consequences of Republican rule (e.g. just as people were sick and tired of Democratic rule not long ago.) No party has the Democrat's ability to pull defeat from the jaws of victory but if they can put up somebody who doesn't use words like misogynoir and latinx against somebody far to the right of Tillis the outcome will be predictable. One form of "party discipline" I noticed in 2016 was that primary candidates from the presidency made the tour of right-wing donor organizations that would make them kiss the ring and run the gauntlet, testifying that they pass a long list of "litmus tests" that I think weren't all that popular with voters, even conservative voters. Trump stood out because he was the exception, and in particularly he brought up the immigration issue which was otherwise suppressed by the system. My interpretation though was that the Republican Right was funding a large number of "no hope" candidates and there was some combination of "these organizations win by getting a lot of coverage for conservative ideas in the media" and "these candidates get a lot of money they can spend to hire their friends to work on their campaigns"

PaulHoule 1y ago

Trump is an unusual factor, he's able to kick a lot of people's asses who other people couldn't kick. The same people who got attacked on Jan 6 couldn't discipline him for that. My understanding is that since the Tea Party, Republican house members haven't lasted as long as house members usually have because they either decide the juice isn't worth the squeeze or get primary challengers. Bigger picture, Tillis resigning is bad news for the Republicans in the sense that, in the current climate, he's likely to be replaced by an extremist just when people are going to be sick and tired of the consequences of Republican rule (e.g. just as people were sick and tired of Democratic rule not long ago.) No party has the Democrat's ability to pull defeat from the jaws of victory but if they can put up somebody who doesn't use words like misogynoir and latinx against somebody far to the right of Tillis the outcome will be predictable. One form of "party discipline" I noticed in 2016 was that primary candidates from the presidency made the tour of right-wing donor organizations that would make them kiss the ring and run the gauntlet, testifying that they pass a long list of "litmus tests" that I think weren't all that popular with voters, even conservative voters. Trump stood out because he was the exception, and in particularly he brought up the immigration issue which was otherwise suppressed by the system. My interpretation though was that the Republican Right was funding a large number of "no hope" candidates and there was some combination of "these organizations win by getting a lot of coverage for conservative ideas in the media" and "these candidates get a lot of money they can spend to hire their friends to work on their campaigns"