Will the Breitbart coalition be the new Republican Party and..

[Emily]

...what are its long-term prospects?
Since Steve Bannon took over the Trump campaign, he has been determining the policies and messaging. And the policies and messaging have been tailored to the Breitbart audience.
Here's a quote from a New York Magazine article:

If the Republican Party of the past was full of rich fiscal conservatives who benefited from free trade, low taxes, low regulation, and low-wage immigrant labor, Bannon envisions a new party that is home to working-class whites, grassroots conservatives, libertarians, populists, and disaffected millennials who had gravitated toward the Bernie Sanders campaign — in other words, Trump supporters.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/10/trump-campaign-final-days.html?mid=nymag_press

This is a take over of the traditional Republican Party by its child. It's clear that Kushner (who owns the New York Observer) and Bannon have profound internet reach and now have a database of names and credit card numbers of the people who will frequent their sites post-election and who would be supportive of a party formed of the described coalition.

But it's still a coalition that includes a number of people who will make members of what's now the Democratic coalition (including educated women and people of color and of minority religions) uneasy - so it's unlikely to be very successful attracting their votes; and even without traditional conservatives ("RINOs" and "cucks" - more votes lost), it includes people with disparate interests: the working-class and libertarianism are natural enemies, temporarily allied due to perceived common enemies; the same goes for libertarians and the religious right who, though not mentioned explicitly are certainly a part of the current Breitbart coalition.

So, can this work short-term beyond 42% nationally? - I think it will control many primarily rural states, southern states and include "rust-belt" states until their economies pick up. But unless they can stop immigration in its tracks and get more quiverfull Christians having 19 kids or successfully block minority voting, scaring away people of color will cause the coalition to be a smaller and smaller portion of the electorate.

And, what are the long-term prospects for such a coalition? Can it dump the racism and attract people of color? Can it iron out the disparate interests and when the economy has shifted to the point that there is less wide-spread uneasiness, will they find policies that bind them together?

[the captain]

The future of the GOP (and actually the Democratic party, for that matter) is the most interesting part of this age, in my opinion. I wish I could make some kind of informed prediction, but instead I just keep kicking around possibilities:
 - The rogue faction continues its insurgency and pushes the previous establishment Republican media further to the center, rekindling a "kinder, gentler" mainstream Republican party (though one that was seen as extreme by liberals already). The rogue faction, then...does it remain a thorn in the side of the mainstream party, or does it splinter into a new party altogether? If the latter, is that viable, or does it go the way of the Independence Party and just sort of fade away?
 - The rogue faction and establishment find a way to forge a truce, maybe cutting some of the most offensive bits of the former and maybe with the latter doing a bit more to help the disaffected undereducated/blue collar/rural voters who are so angry. It's hard to imagine exactly what this would look like, other than a slightly less uncomfortable version of the present. But if that's the case, do the diehard true believers of the rogue faction just do what the fringes of the party have been doing for over a decade and denounce any dealmakers?
 - The rogue faction actually does take over the GOP, more or less, and we see establishment Republicans move into the Democratic party, pushing this already mostly centrist party even further right? If this is the case, what happens to the progressive wing? Do Sen. Sanders, Sen. Warren, etc., accept the electoral victories that would come with such a merger, or do they decry it as the final straw in a decades-long tectonic chasm?

(to brain dump just a few)
 
Regardless of what happens, if he loses, I don't see Trump as maintaining much personal importance beyond being a figurehead and occasional babbler on his stupid inevitable misinfotainment network. He can't even seem to sustain interest or discipline required to be an informed candidate. If there's no presidency at the end of it, one suspects he'll just show up occasionally, say something stupid, and rile up his followers. The actual movement would almost certainly be sustained by Bannon, Ailes, I suppose Kushner, and whatever mini-Trumps can muster sufficiently silly orange skin and hair.

[Emily]

The future of the GOP (and actually the Democratic party, for that matter) is the most interesting part of this age, in my opinion. I wish I could make some kind of informed prediction, but instead I just keep kicking around possibilities:
 - The rogue faction continues its insurgency and pushes the previous establishment Republican media further to the center, rekindling a "kinder, gentler" mainstream Republican party (though one that was seen as extreme by liberals already). The rogue faction, then...does it remain a thorn in the side of the mainstream party, or does it splinter into a new party altogether? If the latter, is that viable, or does it go the way of the Independence Party and just sort of fade away?
 - The rogue faction and establishment find a way to forge a truce, maybe cutting some of the most offensive bits of the former and maybe with the latter doing a bit more to help the disaffected undereducated/blue collar/rural voters who are so angry. It's hard to imagine exactly what this would look like, other than a slightly less uncomfortable version of the present. But if that's the case, do the diehard true believers of the rogue faction just do what the fringes of the party have been doing for over a decade and denounce any dealmakers?
 - The rogue faction actually does take over the GOP, more or less, and we see establishment Republicans move into the Democratic party, pushing this already mostly centrist party even further right? If this is the case, what happens to the progressive wing? Do Sen. Sanders, Sen. Warren, etc., accept the electoral victories that would come with such a merger, or do they decry it as the final straw in a decades-long tectonic chasm?

(to brain dump just a few)
 
Regardless of what happens, if he loses, I don't see Trump as maintaining much personal importance beyond being a figurehead and occasional babbler on his stupid inevitable misinfotainment network. He can't even seem to sustain interest or discipline required to be an informed candidate. If there's no presidency at the end of it, one suspects he'll just show up occasionally, say something stupid, and rile up his followers. The actual movement would almost certainly be sustained by Bannon, Ailes, I suppose Kushner, and whatever mini-Trumps can muster sufficiently silly orange skin and hair.

Those are three interesting scenarios that I'm going to think through for a bit. Thanks!

[the captain]

I should add, each of those assumed a Trump loss. A Trump win, I haven't yet really thought through, but presumably the odds go up that the faction really overtakes the establishment and becoming the GOP. This question then could be how many of the non-Trump GOP stay (because it's proved itself a winning faction), and how many still leave.

[Emily]

I should add, each of those assumed a Trump loss. A Trump win, I haven't yet really thought through, but presumably the odds go up that the faction really overtakes the establishment and becoming the GOP. This question then could be how many of the non-Trump GOP stay (because it's proved itself a winning faction), and how many still leave.

"because it's proved itself a winning faction" is an interesting clause. Here's an essay from the summer about journalists reporting as political scientists (how are the campaigns being run and what works in terms of votes) vs. being reporters (just the facts, ma'am) or historians or economists or whatever.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/cafe/avishai-donald-trump-journalism

And I think this has gone beyond journalists - I think there's some part of the population that judges Trump or Clinton because of their perceived political skills rather than their policies, or at least focuses on their perceived political skills - and spreads negative or positive thoughts on such.

I think it's also become a bigger percentage of the thinking of politicians themselves.

The sport aspect of politics is increasingly important while the policy aspect is less so.

Of course, political skills have always mattered, but as a means to an end, rather than the end in itself.

The vertical gaps in this comment are due to my scattered thinking.

[the captain]

I agree with you entirely and think we were witnessing it in the campaign thread, where in discussion with SinisterSmile, I was commenting on what I thought was the (lack of) substance in Trump, while s/he was replying with insistence that Trump is popular, drawing crowds, could win. It's so common a complaint as to be cliche now, but election coverage tends to be about the horse race. Yet it's not just elections anymore, it's governance in general: we read about who's holding closed-door meetings to strong-arm people into getting necessary votes.

The political aspect, unfortunately, is essential to democracy. If getting votes gets you a chance, of course people are going to focus on getting those votes more than what they'll do with them. Who would you rather have a beer with? Who is relatable? Who is exciting, pretty, handsome, funny, charming ... all things that are irrelevant to governing. It's why I repeat (ad nauseum) the Chomsky line about charisma being a trait to be suspicious of, to be avoided or feared, in politics--not one to be celebrated.

I'll read the linked essay.