There's a lot of fun to be had right now, watching Trump leading the Republican field, and the Republican establishment's consternation as a result. And while his current candidacy is a huge boon for Democrats, as he shows the nation exactly what kind of people make up the Republican and Tea Party base, there is also danger here, a danger that could manifest if he decides to run as an independent.
That danger is two-fold, and it comes partly from his Republican supporters, but mostly from the Democratic voters themselves. And it's a danger that the party, and the nation as a whole, can no longer afford to ignore.
What is this danger? Here's a map that should illustrate the problem:
What you're seeing here is a map of the states, by which party controls the state government. Red means that the GOP controls all three branches of that state's government, Governor, Legislature and their state's Supreme Court. Blue means the same thing for Democrats, while purple means that the state's government is split. As you can see, the Republicans are simply dominating local politics and state power. They outright control the governments of 24 states, nearly half this country, and hold 2 out of 3 branches in another 9 states.
This has to change. This is how it's possible to pass sweeping national legislation to help people get health insurance, and still have states block their access. This is how mining companies can get away with fracking, causing damaging earthquakes and polluted drinking water for thousands. This is why, no matter how much we can win at the top of the ticket, nothing will ever genuinely change for the better.
So what does this have to do with Trump and an independent run? Let's look at history to see. Recall back in 1992, some of you probably weren't even born yet, but others of us will remember Ross Perot's independent run, where he actually got a sizable number of votes. The major candidates at the time were the incumbent George H. W. Bush, and a rising star of the party, a New Democrat (in reality a fore-runner of the Blue Dogs), one William Jefferson Clinton.
Bush ran on a platform of responsible, establishment conservatism, and was probably the first genuinely responsible Republican President since Eisenhower. Unfortunately for him, his "thousand points of light" were about as inspiring as a thousand drops of dishwater. Clinton ran as a New Democrat, as someone willing to adopt free-trade policies and reform welfare to kick thousands of people off the rolls, under the idea that, if "only Nixon can go to China," then "only a Democrat can responsibly move the country to the Right." Perot, that wildcard, ran as a radical libertarian.
And what were the results? Well, Clinton won of course, partly thanks to Perot splitting the Republican/libertarian vote, and largely due to the uninspiring nature of Bush's re-election campaign. But he was elected with no coattails. In the '92 election, the Senate races were evenly split between Democrats and Republicans, and in the actual election, the Democrats lost a seat. (They subsequently gained it back in a special election, after Clinton shrewdly appointed the Republican winner to a cabinet position). In the House, Democrats lost 9 seats.
Another example, more favorable to Democrats, occurred in 2000, when Nader much more obviously split Gore's vote, though with a smaller overall effect. Bush, like Clinton, was elected with almost no coattails. Democrats actually gained 4 seats in the Senate, and Republicans lost a seat in the House to an independent. Republicans lost a governorship at that time as well.
The danger here is fairly simple to understand. Should Trump run as an independent, then those radical Tea Partiers who have become enamored with his "tell it like it is" style, and who won't vote for Jeb or Walker or whoever gets the establishment nod, will still come out to vote. And that's a good thing for folks like Mike Pence, Mark Perea, Bill Bryant and Bill Cole, because they're not running against Trump, and Trump's voters will still vote for those guys.
But these Tea Party Trump voters, who constitute a mere 20% of 25% of the country, are not the real problem. The real problem is what Democrats do, should Trump decide to run. As hard as it is already to get Democrats to turn out, what will they do when Trump is splitting the Republican ticket? Already inclined to stay home, how many will decide that Hillary (or if we're very lucky, Sanders) doesn't need their vote to win, and neglect the fact that Koster in Missouri does, that Inslee in Washington does, that Begich, and Kirkpatrick and Bebee and Bennet and Murphy, and so many other Senators and House candidates, not to mention the State legislatures and courts do.
Democrats have, for too long, focused on the top of the ticket, and neglected the downballot races, and the results are apparent in the map above. And we're not gonna change that map so we can get real, lasting change, by congratulating ourselves about how the Republicans can't win at the top of the ticket any more, while we ignore every other race that matters so much more.
There's really only one solution, if Trump decides to pull a Lieberman on the Republicans. And that's to meet fire with fire. If Trump decides to split the top of the Republican ticket, then Hillary and party Democrats must not be afraid to split the top of their ticket as well. For the good of the party, and for the sake of all those down-ticket races, Sanders, should he fail to win the nomination, must run as an independent as well. In a three-way race, with Republican vs Republican vs Hillary, Hillary will win, but Democrats could well lose. In a 4 way race, with Republican vs Republican vs Democrat vs Democrat, Hillary will still very likely win, and we maximize Democratic turnout to win all the way down the ticket.
If there's anything that Barack Obama's Presidency should have taught us, it's that winning at the top is worthless if we can't also win all the way down the ticket. And Republicans won't be beaten until we beat them from the bottom up.