That is what my coworker said to me the day after Trump officially became the face of the Republican Party, and this is interesting beyond the #NeverTrump movement and can be very instructive if we let it be.
It goes like this: my coworker is quite active in the Republican Party. He’s run for office, he donates, he phonebanks, he knocks on doors. He knows all of the other Republicans in town (there aren’t many of them here) and he truly believes in what the party is supposed to stand for. I, of course, heartily disagree with him about what his party stands for being a good thing, but he knows I’m a liberal and I know he’s a conservative and we both really like each other regardless of that.
So I was interested in hearing his opinion on the topic of his primary, but I didn’t want to bring it up because while he never explicitly told me who he was supporting, I know him well enough to know that he wasn’t a Trump kind of guy, and I knew it would be a sore spot for him. I figured I’d wait a couple weeks before bringing up the topic, but he ended up bringing it up himself, and this is the conversation that followed:
Republican coworker: I can’t believe what the party just did. I just can’t believe it.
Me: Y’know, as a Democrat I should be quite happy with what your party just did because it makes it so easy for us-
RCW: Well, there’s that, too-
Me: But I am absolutely horrified that this is a thing that’s happening.
RCW: You and me both. And I won’t vote for him. I absolutely won’t. And I won’t vote for any downticket candidate who doesn’t strongly disavow him and everything about him.
Me: Yeah, I’ve heard and read a lot of Republicans who say the same thing, but I don’t take it for granted because come October, you’ll all be focused on the general election and most of you will come home, so I’m going to work my ass off to make sure he absolutely cannot win.
RCW: No, that won’t happen this year, it will not happen. I can’t speak for anyone else but speaking for myself, I will never, ever cast a vote for that man.
Me: [with a skeptical look] C’mon, you’re not going to let Hillary win this thing.
RCW: Yes, yes I will. Look, there are four types of voters. There’s the left- people like you, there’s the right- people like me, and then there are the moderate or independents who lean left, and then those who lean right. Who does he bring together? Not the left, or the moderates or independents, but a fraction of the right and a fraction of the lean right.
Me: But he also won, like, every demographic in your party, including moderates and conservatives, religious and not-so-religious, rich and poor. He kind of mopped the floor with all of them.
RCW: Yes, but the base, the people like me who aren’t into this Tea Party crap, who don’t believe in populism, have rejected him. Everything he’s proposed would take more than an act of Congress and no one is going to go along for the ride. So he wins with people who think Obama is a dictator and those people are a problem for our party, and we’ll just embolden them if he wins.
Me: Okay. So, a lot of people are saying that by accepting him as the nominee, the Republican Party just openly stated that they’re putting party before country. And you’re saying that you’re doing the same, just in the opposite direction, that the only way to save your party is to stop Trump?
RCW: I’m doing both. I want to save the party from what it’s become, but I also think he’d be terrible for the country, and that’s more important to me than the party.
Me: He would bring a lot of chaos, and a country in chaos is a really bad thing because it reverberates throughout the world. That’s why he terrifies me: the racism and xenophobia and every other disgusting thing about him is enough to make me hate him, but the chaos that would ensue if he was president would be more than what this country can handle.
RCW: Chaos- that’s a good point. [Laughs] Here I’m thinking about the disaster he’d be for our party but you’re right, he’d bring chaos to a global scale.
Me: Yeah, I feel bad for republicans like you. I mean, I obviously reject everything you stand for but I would like to see a more moderated and civilized Republican Party. So, just so you know, like I said, as Democrat I am kind of happy you did this, but as an American and citizen of the world, I’m humiliated, because I still don’t think that as Democrats we have this thing in the bag, and as a citizen that terrifies me.
RCW: As far as I’m concerned, you’ve already won this election. We blew our best chance at taking back the White House, but I think it will make our party stronger.
Me: Really? How so?
RCW: Because we’re a divided party right now, but when Hillary wins the election we’re going to unify again, and we’ll get the two groups of people- the conservatives and lean republican indies- to turn out again, and probably a lot of the lean Democrat voters, and we’ll make her a one term president. I’m willing to give her four years in the White House if it means we get a good chunk of voters back. But I’m not willing to let Trump define our party.
Me: Huh. That’s actually not a bad idea. Your party is usually the “win at all costs” crowd no matter what, but playing the long game with this election isn’t a terrible idea. But I still don’t believe you’ll stay home in November.
RCW: [Laughs] You just watch.
At this point I started getting ready to leave, and as I was leaving I told him, “hey, if it makes you feel any better, I wasn’t in love with any of my candidates, either.”
“It doesn’t make me feel any better, but let’s talk again in 2020 and see who feels better then.”
What to take away from this? Obviously it’s only anecdotal so let’s not extrapolate too heavily. But what I took away from it was:
- Continue to be heavily skeptical about claims that people like my Republican Coworker will stay home. I know him well enough to believe him and I know that HE will, but that doesn’t mean that that won’t change and it doesn’t mean he’s representative of a large group of voters.
- Even if we accept the premise that a large percentage of the republican base will stay home, we can’t work like they will. A lot can happen between now and November, and we need to stay hypervigilant. In fact, I’d argue that Donald’s weaknesses are the number one reason to be hypervigilant. He only makes our job of winning this election easier if we take him seriously.
- This is a pretty smart long game for republicans to play: let Hillary win because it will unify the republican base again.
Nearly every election there are people on both ends of the spectrum who say that it’s worth letting the other side win just to prove how awful they are and therein wake up the American people. I’ve seen on the right this year (“If Obama didn’t prove to the people how awful Democrats are, Hillary will finish the job and we’ll have a generation or two to prove we’re the better party”) and I’ve seen it on the left (“If GW didn’t prove to the people how awful fascism is then they’ll get a better idea of it with Trump and the left will win big time after that.”)
It’s an absurd argument to make and I usually dismiss it, but this year is different because while it’s based on the same idea, it’s a whole different strategy. It’s not the idea that Hillary should win to prove how awful she’d be, it’s that if Hillary wins it will force their party to refocus and rebuild the way they were supposed to do in 2008, then again in 2012. It means it gives the party body it was missing when it performed its last autopsy, and that body is the base.
In 2012, Romney's campaign basically said that the only chance they had to win was to shore up the number of white people that voted, and they acknowledged that it would never be done again. That’s because the demographics are clearly on our side as a party- we win a lot of demographics, and those demographics are growing while the other (the republican base) shrinks.
But the key to holding those demographics is to earn their loyalty, and this is where I think the Democratic Party needs to focus its attention. Hispanics hate Trump, no matter how many taco bowls he eats; no matter how many times he says “The blacks love me,” they don’t. So, yes, in this election we’re going against a guy who has alienated all but a few (million) people, but that doesn’t mean that those people will stay with us in future elections, and it doesn’t necessarily mean that they’re going to be with us six months from now. We have to prove to them that we’re worth their loyalty. We have to take concrete steps to prove it through legislation and executive orders. Pandering isn’t enough (though that’s all one can do before taking office). Actions speak louder than words, and our actions have to mean something. Not just because we want a larger base, but because we believe it’s the right thing to do.
And we have to acknowledge that while keeping the White House is important, many republicans- some of the most active ones- are already past this year’s election and already focusing on 2018, so we have to meet their challenge.
They threw down the gauntlet this year, in more ways than one, and this could be a major tipping point. Let’s not lose sight of the long game, and let’s not forget that while a large chunk of the republican base may have conceded the White House, they’ve not conceded anything else, and they’re ready to go the distance.
We have to be ready to do the same, and we do that by taking concrete steps to build upon the trust we’ve gained within the demographics of our coalition.
Saturday, May 7, 2016 · 1:16:01 AM +00:00
·
BoiseBlue
ok. This had nothing to do with the primary on our side. I wasn't arguing for or against Hillary, I was relaying a conversation I had with a republican. Apparently we can't talk strategy or long game for elections or our party, and I should have known that.
I am 100% over this primary election; the diary is about the general election and what comes after, and I look forward to the day I can discuss that without people thinking it's about Bernie and Hillary.