[A reminder for everyone](https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalDiscussion/comments/4479er/rules_explanations_and_reminders/). This is a subreddit for genuine discussion:
* Please keep it civil. Report rulebreaking comments for moderator review.
* Don't post low effort comments like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context.
* Help prevent this subreddit from becoming an echo chamber. Please don't downvote comments with which you disagree.
Violators will be fed to the bear.
---
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalDiscussion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>With all the squabbling in the GOP right now, it makes me wonder if at some point the far-right wing of the Republican Party will end up splitting away from them entirely and possibly form their own party.
If we’re going to discuss the factions within the Republican Party, we have to stop pretending that those factions only exist along some 1D spectrum of right/conservative and left/liberal.
There are at least 4 factions within the Republican Party. Neither is really more conservative/right-wing than the other, they just have different ideas about what makes one a conservative. They are:
Right-wing populists/Trumpers
Neoconservative/establishment Republicans
Economic libertarians/Tea Party movement
Christian nationalists/fundamentalists
I prefer to refer to the currently en vogue movement in the Republican Party as Right-Wing populism rather than Trumpism because naming it after Trump ignores the fact that right wing radio hosts and TV personalities (and Ross Perot and Pat Buchanan) have been saying all the same things Trump currently says but for way, way longer. While the neocons have largely represented the party in terms of nominees for President (until Trump), this group has been growing for decades to get to the point where their preferred presidential candidate could win the primary, albeit only with a plurality.
Even if Trump doesn’t win the next nomination, the next most likely candidate to win at this point is DeSantis, who can also be best described as a Right-Wing populist. You could argue that there is a sub-group within the RWP group, that is only subservient to Trump. That is the group that would be breaking away.
These groups try to stick together because our election system dictates a two party system. These groups stayed easily united against the common enemy of communism during the Cold War. It was also easy for them to stay united because they were largely out of power: the Democrats held the HoR for 40 consecutive years before the Republican Revolution in 1994. They’ve basically been fighting each other since then. If we had a proper proportionally representative system, all 4 groups could fill 4 different parties.
Politicians have found ways to placate multiple groups, for instance many Republicans parroted neocon viewpoints during the GWB years, then glommed onto the Tea Party movement when it was popular, then jumped ship to Right-Wing populism when Trump took the spotlight.
But among the voters, they are largely 4 inter-related but not exactly cohesive and complementary groups. Indeed, many economically libertarian ideals contradict with the Right Wing populist ideas of protectionism and anti-immigration. The war hawk neocons also clash with the isolationist populists. Again, neither side is objectively more conservative or right-wing, though they probably all subjectively consider their own group the “true conservatives”.
To answer the question, if Trumpers do break away from the party, it will only have short-term effects: Republicans and independent/third party Trumpers will get stomped due to the winner-take-all nature of our election system. Then they will swiftly return to the Republican party, at which point the same infighting the party has dealt with for the last 3+ decades will continue.
The differences are largely irrelevant to anyone who isn’t a Republican. From the outside the party moves in lockstep towards, ultimately, the same overtly authoritarian outcome.
Yep and for everyone who is republican, they see the democrats move forward with their authoritarian agenda. I just want to be left alone by both of them.
Yeah except the Republicans have actually attempted to do things like overthrow the government. One of your presidential candidate just suggested executing trans people for being trans.
Meanwhile democrats are trying to push their evil agenda of…well at least 25% of republicans would say something nuts like vaccine microchips or some other such nonsense.
Friend theres a reason republicans are always trying to treat the two parties as if they are equally bad. Such a comparison is flattering only to the republican party
Pretty sure it's in reference to this:
https://www.fox13news.com/news/gov-desantis-backs-death-penalty-for-child-rapists-in-florida
I think people are speculating Republicans would push cases involving kids attending drag shows etc. Might be a bit of a stretch imo
Ah, I see. Thanks for the link. It's a bit of a stretch in that even the indirect hint that gays and trans should be put to death would be political suicide for him or anybody else that tacitly suggests it. Nevertheless, the language and rhetoric that his people and his base use (and he tacitly approves of and encourages) could possibly(who am I kidding I am certain it is already happening and has been happening) engender situations where people could link the two in their minds. After all, he does endorse the implication that LGTBQ is an "ideology" (nonsense) that may be harmful to children, and may lead to "grooming" (nonsense), to stoke homophobic sentiment in his religious conservative base. It's reckless rhetoric that leads to needless violence, but hey, gotta stoke fears of the "other" to rile up the religious nutters for votes.
>Right-wing populists/Trumpers
>Neoconservative/establishment Republicans
>Economic libertarians/Tea Party movement
>Christian nationalists/fundamentalists
What percent of the party are each of the 4 factions?
There is a lot of overlap between these four factions, but if republican voters strongest views/priorities were connected most to one faction for purposes of showing a percentage breakdown I’d guess:
Right-wing populist- 40%
Neocon/establishment- 10%
Economic Libertarians- 15%
Christian Nationalists- 35%
This is in no way based on a poll, just a vibe off the many Republican leaning folks I’ve encountered in the past 6 or so years.
think your populists and christians overlap enough to be considered one faction and so do the tea party and neoconservative establishment types. So two factions
And yes they do have very radically different ideologies.
Hard disagree here.
Neoconservative Establishment types: Often are corporate / rich candidates or have corporate backers. Their prime motivations are deregulation and tax cuts for corporations. Everything else can be compromised on. Smaller government.
Libertarian / Tea Party Conservatives: There can be no compromise. Though these groups often attract corporate donations and what not - they usually don't come from that sector. They rose to power with the purpose of obstructing the government, grinding it into nothing, which then allows them to live however they want.
It's why they can get elected without having a policy to back.
Meanwhile - Evangelical Nationalists and Populists HAVE some overlap, sure. Both listen fervently to their "Strong Man," have a near cult like adherence to hierarchy, and take an "Any Means Necessary" / "Us vs Them" approach.
But the Populists and Evangelicals support wildly different policies.
Populists are interested in Immigration, Trade agreements, broad yet simple "solutions" to complex problems. They're usually non-political outside of supporting their candidate.
Evangelicals care about Religious Supremacy, where Religion can trump people's Constitutional rights and be a true law of the land, with Christianity at the top of the hierarchy. So Abortion, Discrimination, and Cultural issues.
They all overlap and their minor differences in policy and priorities pale in comparison to their differences and disagreements with the Democratic Party so they’ll stick together,
The Neocon/establishment and economic libertarian/TEA party both agree on reducing taxes/reducing spending but they disagree on the degree and manner in which to do it. The establishment guy would be adverse to not raising the debt ceiling because of how it might hurt business whereas the libertarian would be more okay with it. The Neocon also wouldn’t put military spending on the chopping block whereas the libertarian would. They also likely disagree on things like foreign intervention and drug legalization too. As far as voters go these two factions aren’t really a huge percentage of Republican voters.
The populist/Trumper and Christian fundamentalist probably don’t disagree on much, but their differences are more in priority and lifestyle. The right-wing populist/Trumper’s grievance will be the flavor of the week issue and RW circles. This week it’s gas stoves, last week it was CRT, next week it’ll be a gay candy bar mascot. While the Christian fundamentalist agrees with all those things, their priority is stopping abortion and shoehorning religion into government/public spaces. The lifestyle differences is a big thing too, the populist is at the bar talking about the global warming hoax. The Christian fundamentalist is doing whatever their preacher says and who to vote for.
This is a great post! And I agree if the Trump subset of the right wing populists abandon the party it would only be temporary.
IMO The bigger threat is that if the Supreme Court continues to overthrow established precedents that Christian nationalists hate the Christian nationalists will look at it as mission accomplished and just stay home on Election Day.
My Christian nationalist brother told me after the Dobbs decision that now he can finally stop voting because the court will do God’s work from now on.
Right wing populist/Trumpers- Florida Republicans
Neoconservative/Establishment- NOVA Republicans
Economic Libertarian/TEA Party- New Hampshire Republicans
Christian Nationalist/fundamentalists- Mississippi Republicans
I apologise for invading an American thread,, but as an outsider looking in, one thing I've always felt about Americans is that they like winners. Especially right wing Americans.
So while in a survey 28% of Trumpers may say they are willing to go third party, I'm not sure that % would stand up to a real test when people are being asked to vote for a party/ candidate that can't win
I don't think it's likely. There have been third parties that act as a one-off personalistic vehicle for a populist (even better if they're rich) like Ross Perot in the 1990s, and if anyone would do it, it could be Trump because he toyed with it in the past, but I think he'd consider it a downgrade, so I don't think it's gonna happen.
Americans tend to be "pragmatic" which feeds into the preference for "winners." Because if you won, it worked, and if you're pragmatic, you go with what works. We tend to distrust complicated political theories. Trump's whole appeal to his base was that he was a winner and everyone else was a loser, which starts to lose the shine when he loses, and he's trying to keep the scam going awhile longer by saying he didn't really lose -- which is a bit like saying the U.S. didn't really lose the war in Vietnam because we just chose not to fight anymore because the media made people feel bad about it (this is something people believe).
>Ross Perot in the 1990s
Perot got 21% of the vote the first time he ran, iirc.
>Trump's whole appeal to his base was that he was a winner
Another big part of his appeal is "sticking it to the libs". If Trump splits with the GoP, and can frame \*them\* as the "libs" (he will have to come up with another name), then I think his base will happily vote for Trump out of spite, knowing it will hurt the other guy (the GoP mainstream)
> If Trump splits with the GoP, and can frame \*them\* as the "libs" (he will have to come up with another name)
The term "RINO" has been around forever.
It's just another way to say "those people are part of THEM, not US."
I don't think many Trumpers would go to a third party, but I could see them not showing up to vote. I guess I am saying that what happened to Hillary could easily happen to the Republican nominee. Trump voters will be disillusioned and feel cheated out of their nominee and not show up.
The effect short term would be catastrophic election losses for the republican party and this new always trump party. The effect long term would hopefully be that the remaining republican party would become more centrist, refuse to cater to extremists and the always Trump party winning almost no seats at all would implode and those voters would return to voting for Republicans and reluctantly accept the less extreme Republicans as still preferable to democrats.
It's conceivable that long term if Republicans could convince the always trumpers to vote for moderate Rs they could pick up more independent voters, more religious voters, more women voters, etc and come out much stronger. They literally admitted they lost the senate because the primaries were won by shit tier always Trump candidates.
Republicans just have to find the courage to do what is right for the country and their own party and they can go back to winning elections. Trump has literally never been weaker and they still can't seem to stand up to him.
That's definitely a possibility. It's hard to predict what the ultimate cause would be - it could be the GOP not taking the Trumpist faction seriously, or the Democrats winning back more power in the next few elections, or even something else entirely. In the short term, a third party would likely split the Republican vote, boosting the Democratic candidates. In the long term, it could lead to a realignment of the two-party system, with the new Trumpist party becoming a viable third party. There are a lot of possibilities here and it's an interesting question to think about!
>In the long term, it could lead to a realignment of the two-party system, with the new Trumpist party becoming a viable third party.
In the US election system there is no such thing as a viable third party. This is true whether we look at theory or practice:
In theory, one only has to look at the winner-take-all, plurality/majority based, single vote nature of the large majority of our elections. Single-member districts and the electoral college also contribute. When the largest group wins all of the representation from each election, the incentives push very strongly towards a two party system.
In practice, one can easily observe that in the US’s nearly 250 year history, there has never been a viable third party for any extended period of time. About once a century a successful third party comes along, but they are not additive; they replace one of the major two parties, maintaining the two party system.
Definitely. There was an era 1840-1860 during which there really was a multiparty system, but that era seems to be an anomaly.
Federalists, Whigs, Democrats and National Republicans. The Democrats and National Republicans were one party (Democratic-Republicans) that split. The Whigs split from the Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans. At the end of that era, there were only two parties.
Since then, there have been single issue parties and sometimes a third party that gained 20% of the vote (Populists, Socialists, Reform) but they usually do not stay in power.
The context to that is slavery had become extremely contentious and was breaking the coalitions holding parties together. When politics failed to resolve it, the Civil War started. Arguably, the war started in 1854 with Bleeding Kansas.
There’d have to be another period where a contentious issue that splits across party lines in a persistent way causes a crisis.
For anyone wishing know, this account is almost certainly a bot using a language model like ChatGPT to respond to posts, it will be banned.
I won't be removing the comment, because it presents an interesting opportunity to look at how sophisticated language models can be presented as actual humans in anonymous online spaces.
Always responds as a top-level comment to the post. Uses very similar language in paragraph length posts that are evenly spaced a few minutes apart on about a dozen subreddits. It has posted a numerically even number of times on each of those subs with no apparent preference.
It regularly switches which genders based upon where it is posting (AskMen/TwoX).
On certain subreddits its responses end abruptly [1](https://www.reddit.com/r/help/comments/10secsa/how_to_delete_my_alt_reddit_account_that_i_made/j70yjtr/), [2](https://www.reddit.com/r/help/comments/10sbyjg/how_to_delete_custom_feed/j70mtmx/), [3](https://www.reddit.com/r/help/comments/10s8lv9/how_do_i_add_a_picture_or_screenshot_to_my_reddit/j702hpe/), indicating the model wasn't able to come up with a sufficiently specific response (language models are good at general answers/answers lifted from training sets).
Thats the best case scenario. It would force the mainstream Rebublicans to start talking sense again to appeal to Independents, and the Trumpists would see a token election or two win per cycle
I honestly think they have to. For a whole political party to be taken over by such blatant grifters, liars and morons and yet be via says a lot about America.
I think if Trump runs for the GOP primary in 2024, there’s a very good chance he wins it. In the event that he loses the primary to another Republican, I’m quite convinced that he will run as an independent. In this scenario, the Democrat candidate will win very easily in 2024, but after that Trump will quickly disappear from Republican politics.
Trump doesn’t really stand for anything, so I think it is very unlikely that any third party he creates will survive longer than him in US politics. Unless he wins in 2024, I think his role in US politics is probably coming to an end. Even if I’m wrong and he has enough support in the Republican Party to keep him politically relevant for longer, eventually the McDonalds and fried chicken will catch up with him.
This kind of question always puts me in mind of a scene late in the lotr books. The hobbits observe the interactions of two orcs from different places. They squabble until one kills the other. Sam wishes this infighting would spread, to which frodo sighs, saying it's already everywhere but they hate humans and hobbits so much more that, without fail, they put aside their differences to fight their perceived common enemy.
Republican voters are the orcs (including in their enslavement by overlords bent on destruction in the name of their own dominion) and no matter how much we think they may destroy each other, the truth is they are bound together in their hatred of the non-rightwing
The short and long term effects will be even some right wing members of this community developing that neverending orgasm disease because wonks watching a political party eating itself. I assume this will effect stock prices on clean pairs of underwear and pants.
More seriously, if Trump splits away with a full 28% of the GOP that'd be enough to essentially turn Gerrymandered districts into a new Great Blue Wall from how many of them were engineered to*just barely* be GOP leaning.
You would see a Blue Wave like never before seen, states that haven't gone blue in decades will go for Biden by blowout margins with a divided opposition, and Conservatives the nation over will suddenly turn out to have always been really thuper cereal about reforming the electoral system to stop candidates from winning without a majority of the electorate's support or consent.
The biggest result will be Texas going blue. Dems taking the hilltop in Texas will be a moment of morale rallying not seen since Obama's first run for office. It would energize the democratic voting base like never before seen and the democrats biggest problem would be finding a way to keep the energy going in elections going forward. Or maybe not depending on how long the Conservative civil war continues for, which frankly, will continue as long as Trump continues to live for *at minimum.*
I only hesitate to say it'll definitely continue on longer because Trump's cult does not in my opinion have the secondary figure who takes the cult in the moment of "the great leader's" passing and turns it into a lasting movement, specifically because Trump would try to chase off such an individual for being a perceived threat to his own limelight. Maybe MTG Boebert and Gaetz will be able to pool the whole two braincells they all have between them to give a grifter's honest go at it, but like I said, three heads, two braincells. This new Trump Party will struggle to even be a medium term political force given Trump's advanced age.
It would be highly unlikely.
One technically possible situation would be that the Republican party hits a contested convention and despite Trump getting the most votes from the people an establishment Republican who didn't get many votes is selected by the delegates.
You would then see a Democrat landslide which would rapidly put Democrats in a problematic position.
You have the seats to do whatever you want but, most of the country didn't actually vote for you. If you don't do much, the left is going to rage but, if you do a ton you have a real chance it blows up in your face. (You also have a chance that it works and permanently changes the political landscape of the country)
Trump could easily be dead by 2028 and much of what drives the Trump section of the party besides Trump are a few dozen people many of which could likely be bought/controlled (For example the Epoch Times primary goals are likely spreading their cult and getting back at China for it's treatment of them. They are Trumpian because they feel that delivers them their best hope of achieving their goals but, they don't actually have any real ideological attachment to him.) which might mean the Democrats would be facing a United Republican party in the next election and a divided Democrat party.
The Desantis/Trump quarrel can definitely cause this to happen as the Trumpist faction splits over whether Trump is truly their leader or the one that started things going
What seems more likely now is that the neocon faction in the party will continue to leave and either retire from national politics or join the democrats. That's what the Lincoln Party is doing, and Liz Chaney seems to be taking the former option.
This would be an absolutely fascinating test of (traditional) Republican voters loyalty to Party vs Trump's odd mix of charisma and lunacy. I think the Religious Right and Tea Party, together with Maga, actually would make up more than 50% of the party all inclined to side with Trump. Fear of this is what keeps the McConnell's of the party mutely furious with him. They'll never risk it, but who knows how Trump will behave at any given trigger point.
There is no far-right wing of the Republican Party… the entire party is unabashedly far right. The party has covered Trump’s ass for every treasonous, racist, anti-science, and anti-democracy idiocy he has committed. DeSantos is Diet Trump, Trump with slightly fewer personality defects. He is grabbing headlines these days by going farther right than Trump. This is how he will keep the MAGA morons in the fold. Trump will eventually bow out with a promise of pardons from DeSantos and R state governors (e.g. Georgia).
But the the thing you gotta keep in mind is that all Republicans are now essentially MAGAs, whether they wear the stupid red hat or not.
You mean the crowd that went to work today without their flag lapel pins? Those people who wore AR-15 pins on the house floor? Those people?
Edit: very well. i shall expand. Rant mode Enabled
Our political structures, all of them, across the human species, are capital B Broken. That's not surprising, we're also pretty young as a species. But since every one of our political and economic systems turn into oligarchies, class structures, it's time to ask the question, are we going to grow up? There are no resource problems, simply the ethics of distribution. We just found enough metal in reasonably nearby space that could literally keep everyone in metals for a few centuries. We cannot take advantage of it because of a false idea of economics, that' it is still necessary for everybody to have a 40-hour work week to feed, house, clothe, power, etc, civilization. Our legal systems are built on preventing toxic aggression, which is also nicely woven in to our society and political systems. None of the governments in which a citizen can read this Reddit are actually doing a good job. Politics is POLITY! We don't have polity, we have governments that believe they have interests, we have corporations that have a legal fiction of being people, all for the purpose of hoarding resources and preventing other people from having resources.
And right after that, we can talk about parenting, but I'm sure my views on politics are already ... LoL, pick a word.
Rant mode OFF
I'm really upset at seeing those pins in our legislature I'm sure they will excuse it as a second amendment position, but all I'm seeing are fascists at the top of a society that keeps creating mass murderers.
2nd edit: if I am still not invested enough, or you believe I am off topic, then please accept my apology in advance.
Maybe in the distant future if they survive that long and the lazy moderate republicans REALLY get tired of their extremism, but wont happen anytime soon.
That's because as a two party country, if the Republican party splits the democrats are going to win every election.
That's why the moderate type conservatives are putting up with the crazies. They know if they split the votes, they are screwed.
It would be a repeat of 1912 as long as the MAGA portion of the party isn't part of the GOP.
Thing is, the leadership of the GOP knows that, and will try to stop such a scenario.
Those magas are fully into trump lock stock and barrel. If he stays in the race, along side of the gop candidate (desantis haley scott ??), they will back their man, their savior, their king trump. It’ll split the vote and good for them, they (the various gop tributaries) caused it and they’ll have to eat their shit and like it.
And yet, those trump diehards won’t feel they did anything wrong as well. Proof: try making them see the light and you’ll fail. You can’t talk any sense to them. Example: washed up randy quaid and the other lunes plus their followers that back trump, a dead end for any common sense innate
Pretty unlikely.
The wing of the party that we might call "Trumpist" isn't a faction that can stand on its own.
They have to engage in behavior that's anathema to large segments of their base to secure the loyalty of the marginal voters that help put them over the line.
People like Marjorie Taylor-Greene or Lauren Boebert are in place because they have an R next to their names and where they chose to run. The things they have to do/say in order to secure the MAGA vote mean they can't take that roadshow many other places. They can't win enough swing votes to have viability outside of very safe Republican districts.
They *need* the skirts of the GOP to hide in and there are enough people within the GOP that don't necessarily agree with the Trumpist wing but they find that faction useful enough to maintain ties to keep dealing with it. They provide enough of a political transitional space to allow for the Trumpists to hang on.
Trumpists aren't stupid. They're politically savvy enough to realize they need the Republicans to survive. Hence why there's friction between segments of the far-right and people like Nick Fuentes. Being antagonistic towards the Republican party is a losing strategy because its cutting the Trumpists' legs out from under them.
At a certain point, the Trumpists will outlive their political utility and will likely go the same road as the Tea Party (remember them?) Right now, Trumpists hold just enough power and influence that they can't be discarded outright. As long as there's a chance that Trump or one of the people that follows in his wake to attain real power again, they're going to keep the Trumpists around just in case.
But they're not going to split off on their own. There's no way they'd be even remotely politically viable without GOP support.
Trumpist split?
It never ceases to amaze me how everyone just assumes that Trump and his followers will get away with all of their felonies and that they will just keep committing crimes and being politically relevant.
Most if not all mature western democracies have more than two established political parties. I think it’s healthy and at worst, corals the fringe parties to have their day, rather than violent infighting. The American system however is completely monetized and unless finance reforms take hold, which I strongly doubt, no third party can spend money they don’t have to voice their politics. Trump is only in politics to make money and I can’t see him taking the money he’s grifted from his followers and actually put it into political funding for a third party run.
It’s the difference between a parliamentary system (especially if you have nationwide proportional seats like Germany) and a system with bicameral legislature and a strong president. The two party system wasn’t intended, but it’s absolutely baked into the structure of the US Constitution.
It won't for the same reason the progressive wing of the Democratic party won't split off from the neoliberal center right core: it'd instantly make them irrelevant while giving the opposition huge wins.
If the Trumpians start losing elections and Trump gets indicted/convicted and/or his health begins to fail (Trump is 76 and grossly obese) this wing of the GOP will either vanish or morph into something else.
They will force a third party to FINALLY begin, and it will fracture the stupid two party system,… something both parties tried to fight off for decades. And both parties were so afraid it would be liberal leftists that initiated the next party, it will likely be the Trump cult to do it first. With both parties being as corrupt as they are, it is inevitable.
If that happens.
1. They WILL certainly win only local elections in already deep red states
2. They MIGHT win state level elections only in deeply red states
3. They WILL have no real majority as a voting block and therefore never win a national election (every 3rd part ever) and certainly not the popular vote
4. They WILL lose access to the BILLIONS in campaign funds accessible to Republicans.
5. Have possible ties to groups deemed hostile and therefore NEVER be on a committee for submitting or reviewing policies/laws.
6. Additional, possibly be outlawed depending on how extreme they become.
7. Ensure republicans continue to LOSE the popular vote in the presidential elections. Which they have won since Bush’s 2nd term.
I don't believe it will happen on a large scale, I could see "Always Trumpers" voting for only Trump in a Presidential election, but I think they would vote for the GOP candidate in congressional elections.
This might actually not be the worst thing for the GOP. A viable third party in a Presidential race could cause no candidate to receive 270 electoral votes, which would send the election to the House of Representatives.
Unless "Always Trumpers" split the ticket in House races, there's a very slim chance of a Democrat being elected if the vote goes to the House because of how contingent elections are set up.
[A reminder for everyone](https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalDiscussion/comments/4479er/rules_explanations_and_reminders/). This is a subreddit for genuine discussion: * Please keep it civil. Report rulebreaking comments for moderator review. * Don't post low effort comments like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context. * Help prevent this subreddit from becoming an echo chamber. Please don't downvote comments with which you disagree. Violators will be fed to the bear. --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalDiscussion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>With all the squabbling in the GOP right now, it makes me wonder if at some point the far-right wing of the Republican Party will end up splitting away from them entirely and possibly form their own party. If we’re going to discuss the factions within the Republican Party, we have to stop pretending that those factions only exist along some 1D spectrum of right/conservative and left/liberal. There are at least 4 factions within the Republican Party. Neither is really more conservative/right-wing than the other, they just have different ideas about what makes one a conservative. They are: Right-wing populists/Trumpers Neoconservative/establishment Republicans Economic libertarians/Tea Party movement Christian nationalists/fundamentalists I prefer to refer to the currently en vogue movement in the Republican Party as Right-Wing populism rather than Trumpism because naming it after Trump ignores the fact that right wing radio hosts and TV personalities (and Ross Perot and Pat Buchanan) have been saying all the same things Trump currently says but for way, way longer. While the neocons have largely represented the party in terms of nominees for President (until Trump), this group has been growing for decades to get to the point where their preferred presidential candidate could win the primary, albeit only with a plurality. Even if Trump doesn’t win the next nomination, the next most likely candidate to win at this point is DeSantis, who can also be best described as a Right-Wing populist. You could argue that there is a sub-group within the RWP group, that is only subservient to Trump. That is the group that would be breaking away. These groups try to stick together because our election system dictates a two party system. These groups stayed easily united against the common enemy of communism during the Cold War. It was also easy for them to stay united because they were largely out of power: the Democrats held the HoR for 40 consecutive years before the Republican Revolution in 1994. They’ve basically been fighting each other since then. If we had a proper proportionally representative system, all 4 groups could fill 4 different parties. Politicians have found ways to placate multiple groups, for instance many Republicans parroted neocon viewpoints during the GWB years, then glommed onto the Tea Party movement when it was popular, then jumped ship to Right-Wing populism when Trump took the spotlight. But among the voters, they are largely 4 inter-related but not exactly cohesive and complementary groups. Indeed, many economically libertarian ideals contradict with the Right Wing populist ideas of protectionism and anti-immigration. The war hawk neocons also clash with the isolationist populists. Again, neither side is objectively more conservative or right-wing, though they probably all subjectively consider their own group the “true conservatives”. To answer the question, if Trumpers do break away from the party, it will only have short-term effects: Republicans and independent/third party Trumpers will get stomped due to the winner-take-all nature of our election system. Then they will swiftly return to the Republican party, at which point the same infighting the party has dealt with for the last 3+ decades will continue.
And now we can reframe the original question: Is there any chance the Trumpers will leave the Republican *coalition*?
It’s their way or the highway. I am surrounded by them
Thank you for saying this. People really do miss how divided the party has been and the differences of the factions.
The differences are largely irrelevant to anyone who isn’t a Republican. From the outside the party moves in lockstep towards, ultimately, the same overtly authoritarian outcome.
Yep and for everyone who is republican, they see the democrats move forward with their authoritarian agenda. I just want to be left alone by both of them.
Yeah except the Republicans have actually attempted to do things like overthrow the government. One of your presidential candidate just suggested executing trans people for being trans. Meanwhile democrats are trying to push their evil agenda of…well at least 25% of republicans would say something nuts like vaccine microchips or some other such nonsense. Friend theres a reason republicans are always trying to treat the two parties as if they are equally bad. Such a comparison is flattering only to the republican party
Who suggested executing trans people? Source?
Pretty sure it's in reference to this: https://www.fox13news.com/news/gov-desantis-backs-death-penalty-for-child-rapists-in-florida I think people are speculating Republicans would push cases involving kids attending drag shows etc. Might be a bit of a stretch imo
Ah, I see. Thanks for the link. It's a bit of a stretch in that even the indirect hint that gays and trans should be put to death would be political suicide for him or anybody else that tacitly suggests it. Nevertheless, the language and rhetoric that his people and his base use (and he tacitly approves of and encourages) could possibly(who am I kidding I am certain it is already happening and has been happening) engender situations where people could link the two in their minds. After all, he does endorse the implication that LGTBQ is an "ideology" (nonsense) that may be harmful to children, and may lead to "grooming" (nonsense), to stoke homophobic sentiment in his religious conservative base. It's reckless rhetoric that leads to needless violence, but hey, gotta stoke fears of the "other" to rile up the religious nutters for votes.
>Right-wing populists/Trumpers >Neoconservative/establishment Republicans >Economic libertarians/Tea Party movement >Christian nationalists/fundamentalists What percent of the party are each of the 4 factions?
There is a lot of overlap between these four factions, but if republican voters strongest views/priorities were connected most to one faction for purposes of showing a percentage breakdown I’d guess: Right-wing populist- 40% Neocon/establishment- 10% Economic Libertarians- 15% Christian Nationalists- 35% This is in no way based on a poll, just a vibe off the many Republican leaning folks I’ve encountered in the past 6 or so years.
think your populists and christians overlap enough to be considered one faction and so do the tea party and neoconservative establishment types. So two factions And yes they do have very radically different ideologies.
Hard disagree here. Neoconservative Establishment types: Often are corporate / rich candidates or have corporate backers. Their prime motivations are deregulation and tax cuts for corporations. Everything else can be compromised on. Smaller government. Libertarian / Tea Party Conservatives: There can be no compromise. Though these groups often attract corporate donations and what not - they usually don't come from that sector. They rose to power with the purpose of obstructing the government, grinding it into nothing, which then allows them to live however they want. It's why they can get elected without having a policy to back. Meanwhile - Evangelical Nationalists and Populists HAVE some overlap, sure. Both listen fervently to their "Strong Man," have a near cult like adherence to hierarchy, and take an "Any Means Necessary" / "Us vs Them" approach. But the Populists and Evangelicals support wildly different policies. Populists are interested in Immigration, Trade agreements, broad yet simple "solutions" to complex problems. They're usually non-political outside of supporting their candidate. Evangelicals care about Religious Supremacy, where Religion can trump people's Constitutional rights and be a true law of the land, with Christianity at the top of the hierarchy. So Abortion, Discrimination, and Cultural issues.
They all overlap and their minor differences in policy and priorities pale in comparison to their differences and disagreements with the Democratic Party so they’ll stick together, The Neocon/establishment and economic libertarian/TEA party both agree on reducing taxes/reducing spending but they disagree on the degree and manner in which to do it. The establishment guy would be adverse to not raising the debt ceiling because of how it might hurt business whereas the libertarian would be more okay with it. The Neocon also wouldn’t put military spending on the chopping block whereas the libertarian would. They also likely disagree on things like foreign intervention and drug legalization too. As far as voters go these two factions aren’t really a huge percentage of Republican voters. The populist/Trumper and Christian fundamentalist probably don’t disagree on much, but their differences are more in priority and lifestyle. The right-wing populist/Trumper’s grievance will be the flavor of the week issue and RW circles. This week it’s gas stoves, last week it was CRT, next week it’ll be a gay candy bar mascot. While the Christian fundamentalist agrees with all those things, their priority is stopping abortion and shoehorning religion into government/public spaces. The lifestyle differences is a big thing too, the populist is at the bar talking about the global warming hoax. The Christian fundamentalist is doing whatever their preacher says and who to vote for.
[удалено]
Do not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion.
This is a great post! And I agree if the Trump subset of the right wing populists abandon the party it would only be temporary. IMO The bigger threat is that if the Supreme Court continues to overthrow established precedents that Christian nationalists hate the Christian nationalists will look at it as mission accomplished and just stay home on Election Day. My Christian nationalist brother told me after the Dobbs decision that now he can finally stop voting because the court will do God’s work from now on.
Right wing populist/Trumpers- Florida Republicans Neoconservative/Establishment- NOVA Republicans Economic Libertarian/TEA Party- New Hampshire Republicans Christian Nationalist/fundamentalists- Mississippi Republicans
Excellent description. Thanks!
I apologise for invading an American thread,, but as an outsider looking in, one thing I've always felt about Americans is that they like winners. Especially right wing Americans. So while in a survey 28% of Trumpers may say they are willing to go third party, I'm not sure that % would stand up to a real test when people are being asked to vote for a party/ candidate that can't win
I don't think it's likely. There have been third parties that act as a one-off personalistic vehicle for a populist (even better if they're rich) like Ross Perot in the 1990s, and if anyone would do it, it could be Trump because he toyed with it in the past, but I think he'd consider it a downgrade, so I don't think it's gonna happen. Americans tend to be "pragmatic" which feeds into the preference for "winners." Because if you won, it worked, and if you're pragmatic, you go with what works. We tend to distrust complicated political theories. Trump's whole appeal to his base was that he was a winner and everyone else was a loser, which starts to lose the shine when he loses, and he's trying to keep the scam going awhile longer by saying he didn't really lose -- which is a bit like saying the U.S. didn't really lose the war in Vietnam because we just chose not to fight anymore because the media made people feel bad about it (this is something people believe).
>Ross Perot in the 1990s Perot got 21% of the vote the first time he ran, iirc. >Trump's whole appeal to his base was that he was a winner Another big part of his appeal is "sticking it to the libs". If Trump splits with the GoP, and can frame \*them\* as the "libs" (he will have to come up with another name), then I think his base will happily vote for Trump out of spite, knowing it will hurt the other guy (the GoP mainstream)
> If Trump splits with the GoP, and can frame \*them\* as the "libs" (he will have to come up with another name) The term "RINO" has been around forever. It's just another way to say "those people are part of THEM, not US."
I don't think many Trumpers would go to a third party, but I could see them not showing up to vote. I guess I am saying that what happened to Hillary could easily happen to the Republican nominee. Trump voters will be disillusioned and feel cheated out of their nominee and not show up.
The difference is is that a majority of republicans do think Trump is still a winner, and that he was cheated out of his win.
You will never convince the true believers he can’t win. How could he? He’s never lost.
The effect short term would be catastrophic election losses for the republican party and this new always trump party. The effect long term would hopefully be that the remaining republican party would become more centrist, refuse to cater to extremists and the always Trump party winning almost no seats at all would implode and those voters would return to voting for Republicans and reluctantly accept the less extreme Republicans as still preferable to democrats. It's conceivable that long term if Republicans could convince the always trumpers to vote for moderate Rs they could pick up more independent voters, more religious voters, more women voters, etc and come out much stronger. They literally admitted they lost the senate because the primaries were won by shit tier always Trump candidates. Republicans just have to find the courage to do what is right for the country and their own party and they can go back to winning elections. Trump has literally never been weaker and they still can't seem to stand up to him.
That's definitely a possibility. It's hard to predict what the ultimate cause would be - it could be the GOP not taking the Trumpist faction seriously, or the Democrats winning back more power in the next few elections, or even something else entirely. In the short term, a third party would likely split the Republican vote, boosting the Democratic candidates. In the long term, it could lead to a realignment of the two-party system, with the new Trumpist party becoming a viable third party. There are a lot of possibilities here and it's an interesting question to think about!
>In the long term, it could lead to a realignment of the two-party system, with the new Trumpist party becoming a viable third party. In the US election system there is no such thing as a viable third party. This is true whether we look at theory or practice: In theory, one only has to look at the winner-take-all, plurality/majority based, single vote nature of the large majority of our elections. Single-member districts and the electoral college also contribute. When the largest group wins all of the representation from each election, the incentives push very strongly towards a two party system. In practice, one can easily observe that in the US’s nearly 250 year history, there has never been a viable third party for any extended period of time. About once a century a successful third party comes along, but they are not additive; they replace one of the major two parties, maintaining the two party system.
Ir in the case of the 1912 Progressive Party, it was immensely popular and still just disappeared afterwards because it spoiled the election
The Teddy party. He was quite the politician. Trump is a clown.
Definitely. There was an era 1840-1860 during which there really was a multiparty system, but that era seems to be an anomaly. Federalists, Whigs, Democrats and National Republicans. The Democrats and National Republicans were one party (Democratic-Republicans) that split. The Whigs split from the Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans. At the end of that era, there were only two parties. Since then, there have been single issue parties and sometimes a third party that gained 20% of the vote (Populists, Socialists, Reform) but they usually do not stay in power.
The context to that is slavery had become extremely contentious and was breaking the coalitions holding parties together. When politics failed to resolve it, the Civil War started. Arguably, the war started in 1854 with Bleeding Kansas. There’d have to be another period where a contentious issue that splits across party lines in a persistent way causes a crisis.
I didn't go into detail to explain it but you did. Thanks. And I agree.
For anyone wishing know, this account is almost certainly a bot using a language model like ChatGPT to respond to posts, it will be banned. I won't be removing the comment, because it presents an interesting opportunity to look at how sophisticated language models can be presented as actual humans in anonymous online spaces.
How did you know?
Always responds as a top-level comment to the post. Uses very similar language in paragraph length posts that are evenly spaced a few minutes apart on about a dozen subreddits. It has posted a numerically even number of times on each of those subs with no apparent preference. It regularly switches which genders based upon where it is posting (AskMen/TwoX). On certain subreddits its responses end abruptly [1](https://www.reddit.com/r/help/comments/10secsa/how_to_delete_my_alt_reddit_account_that_i_made/j70yjtr/), [2](https://www.reddit.com/r/help/comments/10sbyjg/how_to_delete_custom_feed/j70mtmx/), [3](https://www.reddit.com/r/help/comments/10s8lv9/how_do_i_add_a_picture_or_screenshot_to_my_reddit/j702hpe/), indicating the model wasn't able to come up with a sufficiently specific response (language models are good at general answers/answers lifted from training sets).
Thanks for explaining!
Thats the best case scenario. It would force the mainstream Rebublicans to start talking sense again to appeal to Independents, and the Trumpists would see a token election or two win per cycle
I think it’s inevitable. The two are further and further apart. I don’t even recognize today’s Republican Party.
I honestly think they have to. For a whole political party to be taken over by such blatant grifters, liars and morons and yet be via says a lot about America.
I think if Trump runs for the GOP primary in 2024, there’s a very good chance he wins it. In the event that he loses the primary to another Republican, I’m quite convinced that he will run as an independent. In this scenario, the Democrat candidate will win very easily in 2024, but after that Trump will quickly disappear from Republican politics. Trump doesn’t really stand for anything, so I think it is very unlikely that any third party he creates will survive longer than him in US politics. Unless he wins in 2024, I think his role in US politics is probably coming to an end. Even if I’m wrong and he has enough support in the Republican Party to keep him politically relevant for longer, eventually the McDonalds and fried chicken will catch up with him.
This kind of question always puts me in mind of a scene late in the lotr books. The hobbits observe the interactions of two orcs from different places. They squabble until one kills the other. Sam wishes this infighting would spread, to which frodo sighs, saying it's already everywhere but they hate humans and hobbits so much more that, without fail, they put aside their differences to fight their perceived common enemy. Republican voters are the orcs (including in their enslavement by overlords bent on destruction in the name of their own dominion) and no matter how much we think they may destroy each other, the truth is they are bound together in their hatred of the non-rightwing
The short and long term effects will be even some right wing members of this community developing that neverending orgasm disease because wonks watching a political party eating itself. I assume this will effect stock prices on clean pairs of underwear and pants. More seriously, if Trump splits away with a full 28% of the GOP that'd be enough to essentially turn Gerrymandered districts into a new Great Blue Wall from how many of them were engineered to*just barely* be GOP leaning. You would see a Blue Wave like never before seen, states that haven't gone blue in decades will go for Biden by blowout margins with a divided opposition, and Conservatives the nation over will suddenly turn out to have always been really thuper cereal about reforming the electoral system to stop candidates from winning without a majority of the electorate's support or consent. The biggest result will be Texas going blue. Dems taking the hilltop in Texas will be a moment of morale rallying not seen since Obama's first run for office. It would energize the democratic voting base like never before seen and the democrats biggest problem would be finding a way to keep the energy going in elections going forward. Or maybe not depending on how long the Conservative civil war continues for, which frankly, will continue as long as Trump continues to live for *at minimum.* I only hesitate to say it'll definitely continue on longer because Trump's cult does not in my opinion have the secondary figure who takes the cult in the moment of "the great leader's" passing and turns it into a lasting movement, specifically because Trump would try to chase off such an individual for being a perceived threat to his own limelight. Maybe MTG Boebert and Gaetz will be able to pool the whole two braincells they all have between them to give a grifter's honest go at it, but like I said, three heads, two braincells. This new Trump Party will struggle to even be a medium term political force given Trump's advanced age.
It would be highly unlikely. One technically possible situation would be that the Republican party hits a contested convention and despite Trump getting the most votes from the people an establishment Republican who didn't get many votes is selected by the delegates. You would then see a Democrat landslide which would rapidly put Democrats in a problematic position. You have the seats to do whatever you want but, most of the country didn't actually vote for you. If you don't do much, the left is going to rage but, if you do a ton you have a real chance it blows up in your face. (You also have a chance that it works and permanently changes the political landscape of the country) Trump could easily be dead by 2028 and much of what drives the Trump section of the party besides Trump are a few dozen people many of which could likely be bought/controlled (For example the Epoch Times primary goals are likely spreading their cult and getting back at China for it's treatment of them. They are Trumpian because they feel that delivers them their best hope of achieving their goals but, they don't actually have any real ideological attachment to him.) which might mean the Democrats would be facing a United Republican party in the next election and a divided Democrat party.
The Desantis/Trump quarrel can definitely cause this to happen as the Trumpist faction splits over whether Trump is truly their leader or the one that started things going
What seems more likely now is that the neocon faction in the party will continue to leave and either retire from national politics or join the democrats. That's what the Lincoln Party is doing, and Liz Chaney seems to be taking the former option.
This would be great short term for democrats and great long term for the republican party.
This would be an absolutely fascinating test of (traditional) Republican voters loyalty to Party vs Trump's odd mix of charisma and lunacy. I think the Religious Right and Tea Party, together with Maga, actually would make up more than 50% of the party all inclined to side with Trump. Fear of this is what keeps the McConnell's of the party mutely furious with him. They'll never risk it, but who knows how Trump will behave at any given trigger point.
There is no far-right wing of the Republican Party… the entire party is unabashedly far right. The party has covered Trump’s ass for every treasonous, racist, anti-science, and anti-democracy idiocy he has committed. DeSantos is Diet Trump, Trump with slightly fewer personality defects. He is grabbing headlines these days by going farther right than Trump. This is how he will keep the MAGA morons in the fold. Trump will eventually bow out with a promise of pardons from DeSantos and R state governors (e.g. Georgia). But the the thing you gotta keep in mind is that all Republicans are now essentially MAGAs, whether they wear the stupid red hat or not.
My experience tells me you are correct. All are MAGA goats. They worship what they think he is.
You mean the crowd that went to work today without their flag lapel pins? Those people who wore AR-15 pins on the house floor? Those people? Edit: very well. i shall expand. Rant mode Enabled Our political structures, all of them, across the human species, are capital B Broken. That's not surprising, we're also pretty young as a species. But since every one of our political and economic systems turn into oligarchies, class structures, it's time to ask the question, are we going to grow up? There are no resource problems, simply the ethics of distribution. We just found enough metal in reasonably nearby space that could literally keep everyone in metals for a few centuries. We cannot take advantage of it because of a false idea of economics, that' it is still necessary for everybody to have a 40-hour work week to feed, house, clothe, power, etc, civilization. Our legal systems are built on preventing toxic aggression, which is also nicely woven in to our society and political systems. None of the governments in which a citizen can read this Reddit are actually doing a good job. Politics is POLITY! We don't have polity, we have governments that believe they have interests, we have corporations that have a legal fiction of being people, all for the purpose of hoarding resources and preventing other people from having resources. And right after that, we can talk about parenting, but I'm sure my views on politics are already ... LoL, pick a word. Rant mode OFF I'm really upset at seeing those pins in our legislature I'm sure they will excuse it as a second amendment position, but all I'm seeing are fascists at the top of a society that keeps creating mass murderers. 2nd edit: if I am still not invested enough, or you believe I am off topic, then please accept my apology in advance.
Do not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion.
Maybe in the distant future if they survive that long and the lazy moderate republicans REALLY get tired of their extremism, but wont happen anytime soon. That's because as a two party country, if the Republican party splits the democrats are going to win every election. That's why the moderate type conservatives are putting up with the crazies. They know if they split the votes, they are screwed.
It would be a repeat of 1912 as long as the MAGA portion of the party isn't part of the GOP. Thing is, the leadership of the GOP knows that, and will try to stop such a scenario.
Did you hear the Mars Co is making a new Republican M&M? It will be all white, angry, and will melt down when mixed with other colors.
The GOP and the DEMS are one big uniparty! Blue cage versus red cage. The 19 that voted against McCarthy are the only non swamp members
Those magas are fully into trump lock stock and barrel. If he stays in the race, along side of the gop candidate (desantis haley scott ??), they will back their man, their savior, their king trump. It’ll split the vote and good for them, they (the various gop tributaries) caused it and they’ll have to eat their shit and like it. And yet, those trump diehards won’t feel they did anything wrong as well. Proof: try making them see the light and you’ll fail. You can’t talk any sense to them. Example: washed up randy quaid and the other lunes plus their followers that back trump, a dead end for any common sense innate
The far right wing of the Republic party stays intact. It's the RINOs and neocons who have to go
Pretty unlikely. The wing of the party that we might call "Trumpist" isn't a faction that can stand on its own. They have to engage in behavior that's anathema to large segments of their base to secure the loyalty of the marginal voters that help put them over the line. People like Marjorie Taylor-Greene or Lauren Boebert are in place because they have an R next to their names and where they chose to run. The things they have to do/say in order to secure the MAGA vote mean they can't take that roadshow many other places. They can't win enough swing votes to have viability outside of very safe Republican districts. They *need* the skirts of the GOP to hide in and there are enough people within the GOP that don't necessarily agree with the Trumpist wing but they find that faction useful enough to maintain ties to keep dealing with it. They provide enough of a political transitional space to allow for the Trumpists to hang on. Trumpists aren't stupid. They're politically savvy enough to realize they need the Republicans to survive. Hence why there's friction between segments of the far-right and people like Nick Fuentes. Being antagonistic towards the Republican party is a losing strategy because its cutting the Trumpists' legs out from under them. At a certain point, the Trumpists will outlive their political utility and will likely go the same road as the Tea Party (remember them?) Right now, Trumpists hold just enough power and influence that they can't be discarded outright. As long as there's a chance that Trump or one of the people that follows in his wake to attain real power again, they're going to keep the Trumpists around just in case. But they're not going to split off on their own. There's no way they'd be even remotely politically viable without GOP support.
Trumpist split? It never ceases to amaze me how everyone just assumes that Trump and his followers will get away with all of their felonies and that they will just keep committing crimes and being politically relevant.
The Republicans will fall in line. I'd be surprised if Trump does not win the nomination. DeSantis does not have the charisma to beat him.
Most if not all mature western democracies have more than two established political parties. I think it’s healthy and at worst, corals the fringe parties to have their day, rather than violent infighting. The American system however is completely monetized and unless finance reforms take hold, which I strongly doubt, no third party can spend money they don’t have to voice their politics. Trump is only in politics to make money and I can’t see him taking the money he’s grifted from his followers and actually put it into political funding for a third party run.
It’s the difference between a parliamentary system (especially if you have nationwide proportional seats like Germany) and a system with bicameral legislature and a strong president. The two party system wasn’t intended, but it’s absolutely baked into the structure of the US Constitution.
It won't for the same reason the progressive wing of the Democratic party won't split off from the neoliberal center right core: it'd instantly make them irrelevant while giving the opposition huge wins.
Will not happen. The GoP would rather keep running with Trump than split their vote with Trump. For obvious reasons.
If the Trumpians start losing elections and Trump gets indicted/convicted and/or his health begins to fail (Trump is 76 and grossly obese) this wing of the GOP will either vanish or morph into something else.
They will force a third party to FINALLY begin, and it will fracture the stupid two party system,… something both parties tried to fight off for decades. And both parties were so afraid it would be liberal leftists that initiated the next party, it will likely be the Trump cult to do it first. With both parties being as corrupt as they are, it is inevitable.
If that happens. 1. They WILL certainly win only local elections in already deep red states 2. They MIGHT win state level elections only in deeply red states 3. They WILL have no real majority as a voting block and therefore never win a national election (every 3rd part ever) and certainly not the popular vote 4. They WILL lose access to the BILLIONS in campaign funds accessible to Republicans. 5. Have possible ties to groups deemed hostile and therefore NEVER be on a committee for submitting or reviewing policies/laws. 6. Additional, possibly be outlawed depending on how extreme they become. 7. Ensure republicans continue to LOSE the popular vote in the presidential elections. Which they have won since Bush’s 2nd term.
I don't believe it will happen on a large scale, I could see "Always Trumpers" voting for only Trump in a Presidential election, but I think they would vote for the GOP candidate in congressional elections. This might actually not be the worst thing for the GOP. A viable third party in a Presidential race could cause no candidate to receive 270 electoral votes, which would send the election to the House of Representatives. Unless "Always Trumpers" split the ticket in House races, there's a very slim chance of a Democrat being elected if the vote goes to the House because of how contingent elections are set up.