Republican Voters Split on How House Majority Should Use Its Power

This is a survey of RepublicanI’ll emphasize the point of the gate for -leaning voter, and not the larger electorate.  It is now up to these voters whether they would prefer the new GOP House majority. (a) More inclined to compromise and working with the president or his party. (b) This is primarily a role that seeks to challenge an opponent.  I would have expected a more lopsided response from the latter option. But that’s not what happened. CBS News was not quite right This survey result.  It discovered a dead heat.

Find the best in the new @CBSNews National poll:

Republicans are evenly divided on how the House majority should be used: 48% want to work with Biden/Democrats, 52% want to focus on opposition.

(Among self-ID’d MAGA Republicans, over 2-to-1 say oppose.)https://t.co/ARtcBSNiBJ pic.twitter.com/dYNtz4gLLp

— Sahil Kapur (@sahilkapur) January 8, 2023

Surprised that almost half chose the first option, with a third of self-identified “MAGA Republicans.”  I would prefer to support the ‘focus of opposition’ bare majority because that is what the vast majority wanted to do to end one-party rule.  Democrats had already done enough damage in two years. It was time to put a strong brake on this agenda.  Someone should say “no.”  Kevin McCarthy, newly elected House Speaker, is that person. He can stop Democratic excesses and schemes dead in their tracks.  Given the current power structure in Washington DC, that’s the main function of the job.  Republicans, however, are well-known for their ability to resentfully In historical fashion, they were under-performed Last November, they failed to win the public opinion arguments on many of the campaign’s most important issues.  They failed to reach their full potential and did not live up to historical precedents because they were unable to fulfill the expectations of independent and swing voters, who are those who tend to elect presidents and make majority votes. Split their votes almost equally Between the unpopular in–power party and unpopular out–of-power party.  In times of widespread discontentment, the usual clear advantage for opposition parties didn’t materialize.  

This was especially true at federal level because many voters couldn’t support candidates that they perceived as too crazy, or too connected to the ex-president.  More mainstream candidates won, including governors from the center-right ideological spectrum and temperamental spectrum.  Other candidates also won. The sagging was substantial These Republicans are responsible for suppressing party gains in the House and preventing the GOP’s retaking the US Senate.  Many of those voters responsible for Democrats’ poor performance were not impressed by the Democrats’ record in government.  Many people disapprove Joe Biden.  But they could not quite get to the stage of voting R and holding their noses.  A Lots Many of these voters and others, including some more Republican-leaning ones, expect to see accountability, checks and balances, as well as opposition…to a certain extent.  They will expect some form of functional governance. We’ve been saying it.. “Normie” voters are not like terminally-online addicts or political addicts.  They feel frightened by chaos and abnormality.  They punish politicians who agitate these sensibilities too often.  

Republicans would do well to reject most of the Democrats’ attempts to do under unified governance, but to also pick their spots in voting ‘yes.  This will require prudential judgments, and fairly unified buyin. That is why the Speaker scandal last week was not a ‘crisis’. It was more of a precursor to several crippling rounds in high-decibel dysfunction over a period of two years.  Republicans are the essential opposition. should draw certain red lines, obviously, and home in on accountability-minded areas of inquiry that will attract broad support — or at least widespread acknowledgement that such scrutiny is warranted.  The Afghanistan debacle.  The border crisis.  This is without doubt:

Randi Weingarten will gaslight people into believing that her union wants schools to remain open, despite all evidence. It’s time for congressional hearings. House GOP, get on board. https://t.co/3EIunIcV5E

— Rory Cooper (@rorycooper) January 9, 2023

Weingarten and its gaslighting Other teachers union leaders This will anger many parents and should be exposed and countered.  Not only on social media but also in the halls of power.  Under oath.  This is for the record.  Never forget that the unions used partisan clout. To alter the official “science,” In order to promote a selfish political agenda, at great cost to children’s educations and well-being.  You should judge and re-litigate those cases aggressively, especially in light of the shameless revisionism.  Republicans can pursue more partisan or base-galvanizing fascinations like Hunter Biden’s laptop case or FBI’s politicization (both worthy of a careful look), but they must be cautious about overreaching.  It’s not that journalists and Democrats complain about overreach; it’s the norm for ‘normie voters to think this is odd and problematic’.  This is largely about making smart decisions and sound judgments.  That’s it. This piece It was published earlier in week. I find it compellingly and well-argued. Also, it is notable for who it was written and the place it appeared.

Claremont Institute Senior Fellow and Senior Editor of Claremont Review of Books, he argues against Trump’s re-election in 2024. It is well written and worth considering.

“Do [GOP voters] want to make a statement or to win an election?” https://t.co/chGW1XuBsq

— Guy Benson (@guypbenson) January 9, 2023

A frenzied ‘Never Trump’ Bulwarkian It is not screed.  It’s more of a cold, clinical look at the reasons behind it. The author’s estimation, “there is no sound or even sane risk/reward assessment that culminates in choosing Donald Trump to be the 2024 GOP presidential nominee:”

“Politics ain’t beanbag,” In 1895, Finley Dunne, journalist declared. It is not a therapy method or a way to affirm group solidarity. Republicans who are pondering their next steps in 2024 should consider the question that Democrats had to face 48 years before: Are we looking to make a statement? Or win an election. What is the point of voicing grievances against the woke Democratic Party, its journalistic, academic, and corporate support? Is the goal to create a virtuous circle in partisan politics? Win elections and thereby gain power. This power is then used to enact sound policy, which has positive effects that increase the chances of winning future elections. … We know too many things about Trump in 2023 to believe that he’ll be a better politician now than he was in the past. To begin with, we know too much about Trump as a Republican presidential nominee to be confident that he’ll prevail against Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, or some other Democrat in 2024. Trump has won 46.1% and 46.8% of the popular vote, respectively, so there is every reason for us to believe his ceiling is not at 50%. This is a problem. 

In 2016, many things had to go just right for Trump to translate his second-place finish into an Electoral College majority, starting with third-party candidates winning 5.7% of the vote and Hillary Clinton’s singular shortcomings as a politician. It is a form of invitation to defeat to predicate another presidential nominee on these favorable conditions being in place again. There’s little reason to think that Trump can crack this ceiling and improve upon the results he got in 2016 and 2020. Since announcing his candidacy in 2015, Trump has been the nation’s dominant political story: the most discussed person in public life and the most polarizing. At this point, the number of voters who feel they still don’t know enough about him to form an opinion would barely fill a high-school auditorium. The 53% who voted against him twice must be smaller than the portion that would be willing to vote for him in a third election. In 2016, Trump won 48% of independent voters against Hillary Clinton’s 42%, according to exit polls. He died four years later. Lost Among independents, 54% to 41 %…NNot even a unanimous Republican voter support would make him a viable candidate in a general election…

THe Resistance strengthened Trump’s bond with his voters by giving them a shared grievance: he After adhering to the rules, had won the nomination and election for 2016; They had voted for him in the good-faith expectation that their duly elected candidate would enjoy the same powers and authority under the Constitution as did his duly elected predecessors; but Washington’s permanent government set out from Day One to override voters’ judgment with its own. Trump and his voters believe that the Establishment stole another term. However, it also believes that it succeeded in stealing his first term. Trump’s most committed followers ended up more aggrieved after the 2020 election than they had been before the 2016 one. This result is an incredibly powerful message. There are two things that can be true: Trump was unfairly maligned, and his efforts were thwarted.  He took the worst out of a difficult situation …A political party that wishes to win or survive must take these contests seriously and put forward its most promising candidates rather than those who were most hurt…Even though one might argue that Trump’s transgressions were not as serious as the ones he committed, The Republican Party exists not to nurture grievances but to win elections. Its ultimate objective of principled victories cannot be reconciled by nominating Donald Trump to the presidency in 2024.

Whether you agree or disagree, I encourage you to read and reflect. The whole thing.  The 2022 midterms and 2018 and 2020’s setbacks offer many opportunities. It is not easy to learn clear and difficult lessons Republican voters.  These lessons may decide whether 2024 will be a crucial bounce-back year or a disaster. It all depends on how they are able to collectively accept them and take action.  Important decisions are coming.  Take care.