70% of Republicans Would Consider Joining New Party Formed by Donald Trump, Poll Find

[Au165]

The article below is interesting and is something I have repeatedly brought up for a while now. Obviously, it's a single poll and not indicative of every Republican but the continued loyalty we are seeing in the Senate does make it clear they are worried about the power Trump still holds over their party.

The scary thing is the number of people who consider the opposing party as "enemies".

https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2021-02-09/70-of-republicans-would-consider-joining-new-party-formed-by-donald-trump-poll-finds

Quote:MORE THAN TWO-THIRDS OF Republicans would consider joining a new political party led by former President Donald Trump if he decided to leave the GOP and form a new party.

A CBS News poll found that 33% of Republicans would join Trump's new political party and another 37% said they would "maybe" join the new party. Thirty percent of Republicans said they would not leave the GOP.

As the second impeachment trial of the former president begins, nearly half of Republicans, 46%, say it is very important for the party to remain loyal to Trump, with 27% saying it is somewhat important. Twelve percent don't believe it is important at all to stay loyal to the former leader of the Republican Party.


Additionally, 71% of Republicans say that any member of the party who votes to impeach or convict Trump is disloyal, compared to 29% who say they are principled.

When it comes to the basis of the impeachment trial, whether Trump incited the deadly riot at the Capitol last month, 54% of Americans believe he did. That percentage rises to 88% among Democrats and drops to 21% among Republicans.

The stark difference in opinion between political parties highlights the divide in the country, with 57% of Republicans describing their Democratic counterparts as "enemies." Forty-three percent say they are their "political opposition."

The hostility decreases somewhat among Democrats, with 41% describing Republicans as their enemies and 59% describing them as political opposition.

Despite the deep partisan divides, a majority of Americans, 56%, still believe the Senate should convict Trump in his second impeachment trial.

[GMDino]

(02-11-2021, 09:37 AM)Au165 Wrote: The article below is interesting and is something I have repeatedly brought up for a while now. Obviously, it's a single poll and not indicative of every Republican but the continued loyalty we are seeing in the Senate does make it clear they are worried about the power Trump still holds over their party.

The scary thing is the number of people who consider the opposing party as "enemies".

https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2021-02-09/70-of-republicans-would-consider-joining-new-party-formed-by-donald-trump-poll-finds

Trump maintained a 35% or so approval rating no matter what he did or said for four years as President so that number doesn't surprise me.

Add in the purely personal fact of the number of Trump supporters I know and that number goes much higher.  They would join his party and only vote for who he told them too.  Now that would only be on the national and state levels probably, but I can see the locals "aligning" themselves with that party too.  We have a local rep who would legally change his name to "Trump" is he thought he could without being TO obvious.

[*Nately120*]

Thst sort of schism would really make things easier for democrats. Trump being able to run in 2024 could screw Republicans, but they've got to let him off the hook for fear of losing his supporters.

If he's on the ballot in 2024 even the crappiest Democrat could cakewalk into the WH as he takes 10+ million votes from the Republican candidate. Loyalty to Trump doesn't pay.

[CJD]

They're just now coming down from the high that they've been under for the last 4 years and are desperately looking for another hit.

It's going to be a rough process but withdrawal will soon kick in and, assuming they make it through, most of them will be back to your typical Republicans again.

[BigPapaKain]

Good. Let them. Fracture that party of spineless clowns.

[*Nately120*]

(02-11-2021, 09:58 AM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: They're just now coming down from the high that they've been under for the last 4 years and are desperately looking for another hit.

It's going to be a rough process but withdrawal will soon kick in and, assuming they make it through, most of them will be back to your typical Republicans again.

The closest thing I could see to this is someone who wants to vote for Trump saying "I'd love to vote 3rd party for Trump, but he can't win and I can't let the baby-eating democrats win, so I have to vote for a republican I don't like as much as Trump."  But, Trump as a 3rd party could still get 10% of the votes and then claim the election was rigged at that he won and that people need to storm the capitol and fight fight fight fight fight fight fight fight peacefully.

Candidates acting like Trump or taking from the Trump playbook hasn't worked yet, but it's still too early to tell how that will play out.  I'm just saying IF Trump is on the ticket he's going to have a Ross Perot-style effect on the already shaky grip republicans have on the voting public.  A party that has won the popular vote twice in the past 30 years can't afford to lose 10 million votes.

Additionally, a 3rd party being created for a single person and not a set of political standards/ideals/goals is also pretty bizarre. It's just the next step in the cult thinking of the Trump party. I can tell you what democrats/republicans/libertarians/greens etc generally believe in. The Patriot Party? How can you describe that other that "Trump?"

[CJD]

(02-11-2021, 10:17 AM)Nately120 Wrote: The closest thing I could see to this is someone who wants to vote for Trump saying "I'd love to vote 3rd party for Trump, but he can't win and I can't let the baby-eating democrats win, so I have to vote for a republican I don't like as much as Trump."  But, Trump as a 3rd party could still get 10% of the votes and then claim the election was rigged at that he won and that people need to storm the capitol and fight fight fight fight fight fight fight fight peacefully.

Candidates acting like Trump or taking from the Trump playbook hasn't worked yet, but it's still too early to tell how that will play out.  I'm just saying IF Trump is on the ticket he's going to have a Ross Perot-style effect on the already shaky grip republicans have on the voting public.  A party that has won the popular vote twice in the past 30 years can't afford to lose 10 million votes.

Additionally, a 3rd party being created for a single person and not a set of political standards/ideals/goals is also pretty bizarre.  It's just the next step in the cult thinking of the Trump party.  I can tell you what democrats/republicans/libertarians/greens etc generally believe in.  The Patriot Party?  How can you describe that other that "Trump?"

Well, that's why I compared Trumpism to a drug addiction. There is no logical basis for being a Trump supporter. They don't hold principles and policies the way other political parties do, or at least purport to. It's just 100% culture war nonsense. 

Just off the top of my head, the things I hear the most about from Trump supporters are "topics" like:
Transgender women in sports
standing during the national anthem
Gamergate style sexism (It's not about women in gaming, it's about ethics in journalism, guys /s)
Anti-science bullshit (anti-maskers and anti-climate change primarily, but anti-vaxxers, after previously being split among liberals and conservatives, are definitely trending to the right as of late)
Calling everything they don't like socialism ("Socialism" is when the government does stuff, apparently)
Cancel culture
Defending the confederacy for no reason
The fear of the "other" (be it Muslims, Mexicans, "globalists" etc). 

Everything they talk about is culture war stuff. Remember the Amen and Awomen thing? That somehow got people upset. Because culture war.

In my past discussions with Trump supporters, I'm hard pressed to even get a single policy that they actually believe in outside of maybe abortion (which I consider settled law and thus a form of culture war rhetoric rather than policy, but I understand how someone would not consider this a culture war issue if they truly believed that fetuses should have the same rights as fully grown humans).

Just constant doomer posting about how the country is destined for destruction unless Trump does...something to make America Great again? It's not even clear.

I've said before, TDS is the derangement syndrome experienced not by "Trump haters" but by his supporters. So splitting from their best shot at gaining power (The GOP) wouldn't surprise me at all. Outrage is intoxicating and they're searching for that next high. There's no logic or strategy behind it, just an attempt to end their existential suffering for a brief moment.

[*Nately120*]

(02-11-2021, 10:55 AM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: Just constant doomer posting about how the country is destined for destruction unless Trump does...something to make America Great again? It's not even clear.

That's the main allure of Trump...convince people they are at risk/under attack and they have to vote for the candidate who will FIGHT for them...and that candidate is Trump.

Who will fight for you?  Trump fights for us.  Why do we need someone to fight for straight, white, Christian Americans?  Well, the guy who will fight for us told us we were under attack.


It's infomercial politics.  Have you ever tried to flip a pancake?  It's impossible!  Watch this actor fail to flip a pancake!  Now that you've accepted that flipping a pancake is impossible we'd like to sell you the answer to the problem you didn't even know you had...THE PANCAKE FLIPPEROONIE 65000!!  

[CJD]

(02-11-2021, 11:04 AM)Nately120 Wrote: That's the main allure of Trump...convince people they are at risk/under attack and they have to vote for the candidate who will FIGHT for them...and that candidate is Trump.

Who will fight for you?  Trump fights for us.  Why do we need someone to fight for straight, white, Christian Americans?  Well, the guy who will fight for us told us we were under attack.


It's infomercial politics.  Have you ever tried to flip a pancake?  It's impossible!  Watch this actor fail to flip a pancake!  Now that you've accepted that flipping a pancake is impossible we'd like to sell you the answer to the problem you didn't even know you had...THE PANCAKE FLIPPEROONIE 65000!!  

That's a good analogy haha. It's a shame that this "straight, cis, white men are under attack in this country" has become a thing. 

I think it may have something to do with social media allowing historically disenfranchised people to have a voice when previously they didn't due to the way our media used to work (prior to social media, the only engagement you got from others outside your direct network was via television and internet news sources of those television programs, which could tailor their message and information as much as they wanted to). So now we have people pushing back on the white, straight, Christian male dominated/controlled societal structure and that push back feels like an attack for those that have historically been unquestioned at the top of the proverbial food chain.

As the old saying goes, "When you're accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression."

[Belsnickel]

I don't like it. No sir, I don't like it at all.

I want a Democratic party that has to fight for their power, because if they don't then they just **** things up.

[Au165]

(02-11-2021, 11:52 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I don't like it. No sir, I don't like it at all.

I want a Democratic party that has to fight for their power, because if they don't then they just **** things up.

I like it in the sense that maybe it'll force a more centric party where the remaining Republicans and the more moderate democrats can converge.

[Belsnickel]

(02-11-2021, 11:54 AM)Au165 Wrote: I like it in the sense that maybe it'll force a more centric party where the remaining Republicans and the more moderate democrats can converge.

It won't. No viable third party can exist without extreme reforms to our electoral system. A third party in a first-past-the-post, winner-take-all system like we have throughout the majority of the country will always act as a spoiler until those in power coalesce into two parties, again.

[Au165]

(02-11-2021, 11:58 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: It won't. No viable third party can exist without extreme reforms to our electoral system. A third party in a first-past-the-post, winner-take-all system like we have throughout the majority of the country will always act as a spoiler until those in power coalesce into two parties, again.

Ehh, we will see. There is a lot we have seen in the last few years we thought never could happen. People are bolder now than ever, even when it is self-destructive behavior.

[*Nately120*]

(02-11-2021, 11:58 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: It won't. No viable third party can exist without extreme reforms to our electoral system. A third party in a first-past-the-post, winner-take-all system like we have throughout the majority of the country will always act as a spoiler until those in power coalesce into two parties, again.

I realize it's odd for me to agree with this, but in the same sense seeing a 3rd party that is based around a single person with no discernable policy or ideology seems pretty threatening to our system.  Seems you and I agree this would mostly give democrats a near free pass into the white house, and lord knows who they'd get in there when the bar is so low.

Look at the 2020 election, say it is Biden vs Cruz vs Trump.  Who wins Ohio and Florida?  Hell, Biden could have won Texas if there had been a genuine divide in red votes that a Trump 3rd party could cause.  This could be quite the unpredictable and GOP-wrecking move...and yet they are the party fighting to make sure Trump has the freedom to do exactly this in 4 years.  It's interesting as hell.

(02-11-2021, 11:54 AM)Au165 Wrote: I like it in the sense that maybe it'll force a more centric party where the remaining Republicans and the more moderate democrats can converge.

I don't foresee this, myself.  If you have democrats getting 51% of votes and then Trump taking somewhere from 10-15% (I'm just spitballing here) of the 45 or 46% republicans can count on, you're talking about one party with half of the voters in its pocket taking on a party that can muster something like 35% of the remaining votes.  That's just too easy for one party to win, isn't it? Giving one party an "easy mode" into the white house is what led to Trump being a "republican" and getting elected in the first place.

[Belsnickel]

(02-11-2021, 12:02 PM)Au165 Wrote: Ehh, we will see. There is a lot we have seen in the last few years we thought never could happen. People are bolder now than ever, even when it is self-destructive behavior.

I realize that there is very little that is absolute when it comes to scientific theories, but what I'm putting out there is based on well researched political science. Obviously, the unthinkable can happen, but the likelihood of it is so slim that it can't be counted on. The only way to help a third-party become viable is to move to RCV and it can be further helped by enlarging districts and making them multi-member.

(02-11-2021, 12:05 PM)Nately120 Wrote: I realize it's odd for me to agree with this, but in the same sense seeing a 3rd party that is based around a single person with no discernable policy or ideology seems pretty threatening to our system.  Seems you and I agree this would mostly give democrats a near free pass into the white house, and lord knows who they'd get in there when the bar is so low.

Look at the 2020 election, say it is Biden vs Cruz vs Trump.  Who wins Ohio and Florida?  Hell, Biden could have won Texas if there had been a genuine divide in red votes that a Trump 3rd party could cause.  This could be quite the unpredictable and GOP-wrecking move...and yet they are the party fighting to make sure Trump has the freedom to do exactly this in 4 years.  It's interesting as hell.

I don't consider it odd. IIRC, you are a social scientist (I may be remembering your field, wrong) and that is what this is all based on. Granted, different fields within the broad umbrella, but you can understand the reasoning that exists there. Of course, you may understand this but still vote third party and that is because humans are not always rational actors.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

Trump only got 44.9% of the vote in the 2016 Primary, so 70% seems like a suspiciously high number.

With how polls have performed the last 2 Presidential elections, I would take this poll with a huge grain of salt.

[*Nately120*]

(02-11-2021, 12:11 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I don't consider it odd. IIRC, you are a social scientist (I may be remembering your field, wrong) and that is what this is all based on.

As Bob Prince would say, right you are, Nellie.

[*Nately120*]

(02-11-2021, 12:13 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Trump only got 44.9% of the vote in the 2016 Primary, so 70% seems like a suspiciously high number.

With how polls have performed the last 2 Presidential elections, I would take this poll with a huge grain of salt.

Not to sound like Nate Silver's ***** or anything, but were the polls really that wrong?  Trump had a chance to win in 2016 and a chance to win in 2020...he got one underdog victory and one predictable loss out of the two...seems logical to me.

If the weatherman says there is a 28% chance of rain and I leave my umbrella at home and it rains I don't say "METEOROLOGY IS WRONG!" actually, given how much people complain about "the weatherman" I'd say that's a lousy example.  It's rainin' men.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(02-11-2021, 12:23 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Not to sound like Nate Silver's ***** or anything, but were the polls really that wrong?  Trump had a chance to win in 2016 and a chance to win in 2020...he got one underdog victory and one predictable loss out of the two...seems logical to me.

If the weatherman says there is a 28% chance of rain and I leave my umbrella at home and it rains I don't say "METEOROLOGY IS WRONG!" actually, given how much people complain about "the weatherman" I'd say that's a lousy example.  It's rainin' men.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomaslandstreet/2019/08/21/the-evidence-is-clear-polls-are-not-to-be-trusted/?sh=600560d147a6
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/04/us/politics/poll-results.html
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/reckoning-with-inaccurate-2020-election-polls/vi-BB1aOqzu

Yes, they were quite inaccurate.

Either way, your point still doesn't address the fact that I highly doubt he went from 44.9% of Republican voters voting for him in the primary in 2016 to 70% of all Republicans willing to outright leave their political party for Trump Party. At the end of the day, the US 2 party system remains unbeaten in staying in power.

[*Nately120*]

(02-11-2021, 01:09 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Either way, your point still doesn't address the fact that I highly doubt he went from 44.9% of Republican voters voting for him in the primary in 2016 to 70% of all Republicans willing to outright leave their political party for Trump Party. At the end of the day, the US 2 party system remains unbeaten in staying in power.

Well yea, that seems like total bs for sure.  I'm saying that the GOP can't afford to have any percentage of their base vote 3rd party.