Overrating GOP's Splitsville

I could link you to dozens of doomsaying pieces in journals all over the country, decrying (or secretly cheering) this apparent schism in the Republican Party.  That is, we assume, the one between the supporters of Donald Trump and the "establishment."

What a crock.

First, let me take electronic pen in hand and note that there are far fewer pieces about the corresponding schism in the Democrat side of the nation, and Lord knows there is one, although no one's heart appears too troubled about it.  That would be the one between the young voters who are overwhelmingly supporting Bernie Sanders, the old socialist, and the non-young voters who are staying home in droves but, when they do actually vote in primaries, are voting for Hillary Clinton, presumably figuring she won't be in jail by the general election.

Those "young voters" preferring Sanders when they do actually vote, are the descendants of the ones who came out for Barack Obama in 2008.  The differences are, of course, first that they are showing up far less than their 2008 forbears and, second, that their candidate isn't even going to be on the ballot in November, where Obama ultimately was.  And I stress the "when they vote" part because to be fair, the Democrats are getting really low turnout in the primaries, which should scare the heck out of them.

Even if you only look at the Democrat voters who actually show up, the two demographics of the Hillary and Bernie people are so wildly different (look at the age splits in the exit polls) that you have to take notice.  That's a serious divide, and as unattractive a candidate as Hillary Clinton is, you could be talking about a pretty healthy bloc of voters likely to stay home in November rather than get all excited about Hillary.  Whose husband Bill, by the way, just berated Barack Obama's "awful" eight years.

So they have their own problems.

The Republican divide is getting all the ink, and there are many reasons.  First, you can't help but to keep writing stuff about Donald Trump.  Everyone loves to write about him.  The press, of course, is so left-biased to start with, that anything they can do to stir up antipathy toward Republicans is an easy story to jump on.  It aligns nicely with their own editorial tendencies.

But is it a problem?

That's a really good question, and I think the answer is "no."  Sure, there is a Republican "establishment" represented by the folks in Congress (Ted Cruz specifically exempted) who appear most concerned with keeping their seats, rather than doing what's best for the USA.  Sure, there are those guys and ladies. Sure, the whole Donald Trump thing is seen as such a wild card, such a threat to their normal way of doing business that they're trying to fix the convention to keep him from the nomination.

I get that.  But the shiny red apple in the not-that-distant view is putting someone in the White House in January who will do what conservatives think the country needs.  That could be Donald Trump, or Ted Cruz, or John Kasich. It could not be Hillary Clinton.

So the real question is whether anything that happens between now and the end of the Republican convention, relative to the nomination, risks that goal of a conservative in the White House.  And I have to think that the answer is essentially "no."

The reasons are, of course, different depending on who gets nominated, and we have to concede that the nominee is either going to be Donald Trump or Ted Cruz, given where the current math leads us.  You see, nobody votes based on what the "establishment" tells them.  Ask Jeb Bush.

If Trump is nominated, he will bring in literally millions of voters who would not vote otherwise, or might vote for Democrats, bringing in states like New York as being newly competitive.  If Cruz is nominated, the electoral math changes, because conservative voters who stayed home for McCain and Romney come out, and because Cruz, the brilliant and skilled debater, will crush Hillary in the debates, unless she gets the media to schedule them at 1:00am on a Sunday.  Or is in prison.  Either is possible.

What is unlikely is that by the time of the election, very much residual animosity from the campaign will remain.  If Trump gets through the convention, Cruz will eventually endorse him, wife-baiting aside, because he's smart enough to know that Trump is plenty more palatable than Hillary, and that a protracted "will he or won't he" endorsement thing after the convention will be a problem.

If Cruz is the nominee, Trump probably won't endorse him, but it won't matter that much.  Trump will go back into his corporate role and continue to succeed there -- as he said, he didn't need to run for president -- and his supporters will make up their own minds.  But, see, the Trump supporters who weren't voters before are not a factor; the ones who were Republicans will vote for Cruz to keep Hillary away, and the ones who were Democrats will stay home in droves because what attracted them to Trump repels them from Hillary.

The press can write all it wants about how fatal the split in the GOP is, but it is trying to make its wish become reality rather than reporting factually.  The "GOP" doesn't vote in November; live voters do (and in Chicago, deceased ones as well).  Those live voters will long since have set their internal discussions and primary battles aside and turned to the issues of the campaign.

Let us hope it is with a level of thought.

Copyright 2016 by Robert Sutton
Like what you read here?  There's a new post from Bob at www.uberthoughtsUSA.com at 10am Eastern time, every weekday, giving new meaning to "prolific essayist."  Sponsorship and interview inquiries cheerfully welcomed at bsutton@alum.mit.edu.