John Boehner on 'Trump party': 'The Republican Party is kind of taking a nap somewhere'

If one goes by party affiliation, both parties have been losing members or the percentage of the electorate for a very long time. Pew Research has this from 1940-2014.

https://www.people-press.org/interactives/party-id-trend/

If you look at it, the Republican Party has pretty much been in the 20's percentage wise since Eisenhower. The Democrats have dropped from a high of 51% in 1961 and 1964 down to 32% in 2014. Independents rose from a low of 15% in 1945 up to 38% in 2014. Today, as of 12 May 2019, Gallup puts party identification at 31% Democratic, 30% Republican and 38% independent. That addresses the political party issue.

As for Boehner, the Republican Party being Trump's party is accurate. So too was referring to the Democratic Party as Obama's when he was president or the GOP as G.W. Bush's party and on back. We do tend to identify each political party as being the president's party. That isn't anything new.

I do agree with Boehner that the GOP has lost their ideals of conservatism with Trump as head of the GOP. That's because Trump never had a political philosophy or ideology. Heck, he has belonged to or switched parties eight different times. Trump doesn't know what he is, period. He's stand for only one thing, Trump himself.

Will the Republican Party return to it core conservative values once Trump leaves? I don't know and really don't care. I do know if the Republican Party is to remain a viable party it will have to make some enormous adjustments post Trump. The Trump presidency has in my opinion offered the Democratic Party the opportunity to make great strides in regaining some of their strength they lost over the years. But like the GOP with its fixation on Trumpers, the Democrats are just as fixated on him that so far they have blown that opportunity. When Trump won the presidency in November 2016, 27% of the electorate identified themselves a Republicans 31% as democrats. The Democrats are exactly where they were in party affiliation in November of 2016 while it is the Republicans who have gained 3 points, not lost. These numbers are dynamic and change month to month.

Actually I think the actions of both major parties during Trump has turned a lot of folks off on both parties. That quite a lot of Americans don't like the polarization that has taken place in Washington, the hyper, ultra high partisanship that they have come to dislike both major parties in record high numbers. That's my opinion. Perhaps if the Democrats turned their attention to making this country a better place than being fixated on Trump 24/7, maybe they could begin taking advantage of the disdain a lot of independents have for Trump and entice some of them to return to the Democratic Party. I don't have much hope in that though. I personally think they blow this golden opportunity for the next 18 months as they have for the first 2 1/2 years.

 

Can't say I disagree with him.

 

Worse, they need little evidence to keep whatever they confiscate, not just guns, money, property, et al.

 

Great post and sorry to be redundant, but I can't help but wonder why an Independent hasn't stood out more, my 1st guess would be monetary backing.

 

Yes it's called civil asset forfeiture. I think such things are wrong.

 

I'm going to take a guess that you're talking about running for election. We have a two party system where the two major parties obtain all the advantages and money. In short, the two major parties have a monopoly on our system. Our election laws are written by Republican and Democrats. They write them as a mutual protection act. If there is one thing both major agree on it is that no viable third party will ever rise or an independent for that matter. In all 50 states Republicans and Democrats receive automatic ballot access. Independents and third party candidate must jump though a million and one loops to get on the ballot.

Financial, corporations, wall street firms, lobbyist, special interest, mega money donors all give to the two major parties. That is where they get their tens and hundreds of millions of dollars for their campaigns and organizations running and expenses. Hillary Clinton in 2016 raised and spent 1.191 trillion on her run for the presidency, Trump a meager 646.8 million. In third place, Gary Johnson who raised and spent 4 million.

https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/graphics/2016-presidential-campaign-fundraising/

One can't compete being outspent by the two major parties approximately 2 billion to 4 million. This doesn't only apply to the presidency. In 2018 Democratic House candidates raised and spent 1.016 trillion to the Republican house candidates 661 million. 2018 senate, Democratic senate candidates 599 million, Republican senate candidates 456 million.

https://www.opensecrets.org/overview/index.php?cycle=2018&display=T&type=A

So yes, our election laws, finances all contribute to virtually no independent running a credible campaign for the presidency. For an independent to run a credible campaign he'd need to be a billionaire willing to spend a ton of his own money. In 1992 when running for the presidency didn't take a trillion dollars, Bill Clinton spent 120 million, G.H.W. Bush 110 million with Perot spending 40 million, mostly his own money. I'd say today, an independent billionaire would have to be willing to spend at least 500 million of his own money to run a creditable campaign. That independent isn't about to receive any money from corporations, wall street firms, lobbyists, etc. They're getting a great return on their investments in our political campaign system.

If I misread you about independents, let me know. I'll address that later.

 

You guessed right again

Thanks again for the leg work.

 

And yet you all still blame Democrats for Trump's complete failure to build his wall. Even when he had complete control for his first 2 years. LOL

 

You got that right.

If everyone works for the government and makes the same wages no matter your profession...

That's about as fair as it gets.

 

Oh no, I like that idea.
We don't need political parties.

Vote based on the person, not his Letter behind his/her name.

 

Wow. Is that really the world you want? You're on your own pally. That could be called "insane".

 

That might actually be a good idea! But the DNC and the RNC would never let it happen.

 

I know.
They have a good thing going.
Good cop/bad cop. And they alternate roles periodically so the sheeple keep pointing fingers and play the blame game.

 

That's called socialism.

 

I don't disagree with anything you wrote here.

I'm an Independent who wishes there was a third viable party, or viable third party candidates.

I just might throw in this though ---- in a way, Trump and Bernie really were like Independents, who managed to develop large enough followings in the two major parties that one is now President, and the other made it very close.....

I'll throw in one more thing ---- I don't know about other states, but I find it unfortunate that in my own state I can't vote in the primaries because I am an Independent. I wish that were different.

 

That's due to the monopoly the two major parties have.

 

You can do that now. Nothing is holding you back.

 

No what happened there is very little of the RINO party left

 

NOT. AT. ALL.

 

I completely agree. I'm all about candidate before party. And it isn't that I am a Dem - it is that I align more closely with what Dem candidates and representatives represent.
But, sadly, we have a form of government that functions with 'parties'. Fix that, and I think we have an improvement.

 

Not much of one after Obama destroyed it. It was his only positive accomplishment.

And that probably only because of the Russia collusion fairy tale that was still alive at the time of the election.

The GOP is very much alive, RINOs not so much.

 

The Dems are currently purging anyone with a remotely pro-life view.

 

What makes you think I don't.
But for about 35% of the population in each party, always vote D or R, that isn't the case.
Go Ross Perot.

 

The "35% of the population in each party" have the same choice to vote for an independent.

 

I doubt it. Else they would not vote the same party every time.
There's a reason they are NOT independent.