President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Biden*

(R) Donald Trump

80%

20%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) V. Archuleta

98%

2%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Marshall Dawson

95%

5%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd

50%

50%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert

(D) Trisha Calvarese

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank

(D) River Gassen

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) John Fabbricatore

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen

(R) Sergei Matveyuk

90%

10%

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

70%

30%

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
March 04, 2016 08:55 AM UTC

Is The End of the Republican Party At Hand?

  • 42 Comments
  • by: Jason Salzman
Former Republican Congressman Bob Schaffer fears the GOP is nearing its end.
Former Republican Congressman Bob Schaffer fears the GOP is nearing its end.

(Promoted by Colorado Pols)

Failed 2014 gubernatorial candidate Bob Beauprez has a message for his fellow Republicans who might be nervous about the future of their party:

Beauprez: “At the end of all this, tough as it’s going to be, family squabbles can be pretty messy sometimes. But at the end of it, you realize, we are family. You grab hands. You give everybody a big hug and say, alright, let’s go win this thing.” (Listen to more on KOA 850-AM clip below.)

Failed 2008 senatorial candidate Bob Schaffer, on the other hand, had a different take:

Schaffer: “I think it is possible that we may be seeing the final months of the existence of the Republican Party. I really think that’s possible. If it’s going to salvage itself and restore itself and continue itself, it’s got to be something dramatic–and it’s not a Trump thing. Trump is not going to rescue it. And neither are the party insiders, who think business as usual is the way to keep doing business.” (Listen to more on KCOL clip below.)

Beauprez’s thoughts on the Republican crisis were by far the sunneist I’ve seen in Colorado, where most of the top GOP leaders in the state took the astonishing position of refusing to say whether they’d back Trump if he became the actual factual nominee–even after calling him a “fraud” (Buck) or a “buffoon” (Gardner).

After being asked seven times, Gardner said he’d back Trump if he’s nominated. So maybe Beauprez reminded Gardner of his familial obligations?

The story that’s missing now is, which elected Republicans, at any level here in Colorado, actually like Trump, not by default but affirmatively. I’ve seen only such person so far say this, and that’s State Sen. Laura Woods (here at 25 min 50 sec). Who else is out there? And why?

Partial transcript of Bob Schaffer’s comments on KCOL March 3…

 

Schaffer: This sounds kind of radical, but I’ve been thinking about this a lot. I think it is possible that we may be seeing the final months of the existence of the Republican Party. I really think that’s possible. If it’s going to salvage itself and restore itself and continue itself, it’s got to be something dramatic–and it’s not a Trump thing. Trump is not going to rescue it. And neither are the party insiders who think business as usual is the way to keep doing business. But it’s got to be something dramatic and remarkable. It’s got come from the grassroots, maybe from the states or some collection of states that re-centers not the philosophy of the Republican Party but the behavior of the Republican Party. That’s the only way it’s going to be salvaged. If that doesn’t happen, somehow quickly and in some remarkable way, I think it’s possible by the time we are going into a presidential election again four years from now, we’re going to be talking about Democrats and some other party, some other organization. Maybe the Republican Party will be around, but it will be a third party by then. I really think that could be where we’re at right now.

Partial transcript of comments by Bob Beauprez on KOA 850-AMAM March 3.

Beauprez: A lot of us are seeing what used to go on behind those closed doors, behind the curtain.  We’re seeing it played out live and in person. This is serious high-stakes politics. Nothing more serious than a presidential nominee. And people feel passionately about it…. At the end of the day, I fully epect, whoever our nominee ends up being, after all the drama has played out, that conservatives will come together and support that nominee because the alternative to us conservatives is so unacceptable…We’ve been down this road before. Every four years, it seems like we go through this with a nomination process. I remember very well the campaign in 1980, and we all thought, oh my goodness, did you hear what George H. W. Bush said about Ronald Reagan with voodoo economics. And we thought that was appalling. Well, then they come together and are on the same ticket, and they serve very well together and became great friends. Politics is a strange business… But at the end of the day, all these guys want is to do what’s right for the country. And they will fight very hard for the right to be that standard bearer. But at the end of the day, we will come together around one. … At the end of all this, tough as it’s going to be, family squabbles can be pretty messy sometimes. But at the end of it, you realize, we are family. You grab hands. You give everybody a big hug and say, alright, let’s go win this thing. That’s how it will end up, I think.

Tweet
Share

Comments

42 thoughts on “Is The End of the Republican Party At Hand?”

  1. I think you've identified a key question to ask of every Republican candidate for the House and Senate. If he's nominated, will you support Donald Trump? Will you ask him to come to Battleground State Colorado to help you campaign?

    1. … don't stop there – it's a two part question, will you support him? And, why? What principles/policies does he support that align with your agenda?

  2. The GOP was this close to losing major party status in the 2010 gubernatorial campaign when Dan Maes (R – Bankruptcy Court) pulled out 11.1% of the vote against Hickenlooper and Tancredo.  Anything less than 10% would have placed the GOP in the Green Party category, I understand.  Yet, the GOP took over the CO Senate and are close in the CO House. 

    So, I’m afraid the end of the GOP will just mean the Stupid Party is having problems, but the Stupid People are still voting.

  3. Trump winning the nomination of the GOP is not the "end" of the GOP.  It simply reflects the internal divisions and the fact that Trump is a skilled opportunist.  If Trump then loses the general election, the GOP will still control the House, possibly the Senate, and will have a freshly minted President Clinton to vilify. All past disagreements about whether Trump is a buffoon or not will fade quickly.  On the other hand, if Trump wins the general election, the GOP will be in serious trouble.  The de facto head of the party would be someone that does not agree with the party platform and will be openly sparring with the Congress and other leaders of his party. Trump only cares about Trump. There is no reason to believe that he will do anything for the good of the GOP.

    1. And if he comes into the convention with the most but not enough votes to take it on the first ballot and is denied? If he goes third party? If he wins the nomination and someone else goes 3rd party? If Dems take back the Senate and win the WH, with the GOP delivering huge disappointment and further angering their base again? There are all kinds of possibilities. 

      1. Defeat to the Repubs is just proof that Big Media, or George Soros, or some other scapegoat is PLOTTING AGIN 'EM, I SAY!!!!!  So defeat is a sign they're winning, like coming in third time after time means Rubio is a cinch for the nomination.  Losses feed the conspiracy machine.

    2. Will the bigots be gone?

      Will the con-men be gone?

      Will the religious zealots be gone?

      Under any circumstances, will the Republican party get less than 40% of the vote?

      1. On a related note, mapmaker, who gets the name? I have little doubt that there will be something called the Republican Party, but will it be peopled by the Wall Street crowd?  The religionists? The "tea partiers?  I've been expecting the whole crazy quilt to rip at the seams for quite a while now, as they really have little in common. This should be entertaining. Pass the popcorn, please.

        1. I guess it will depend on who wins the nomination. I really see three factions. The Drumpf faction includes most of the teabaggers. Evangelicals, especially the dominionist types, will favor Cruz. The Koch branch could hijack the convention in favor of some placeholder (Rmoney?}

          It's the Koch wing that controls what happens. (Rich guys usually win). 

          I don't really anticipate the party itself fracturing. There aren't going to be many R's who will support the Dem nominee. The categories I listed above, bigots, con-men and theocrats will happily coexist if they win. There will be a lot of finger pointing if they loose, but, as in the previous elections, nothing will really change. They're happy and deserve each other.

          I would suggest that they reclaim the party of Lincoln label by featuring this quote from the forth Lincoln – Douglas debate:

          An elderly gentleman called upon me to know whether I was really in favor of producing a perfect equality between the negroes and white people. While I had not proposed to myself on this occasion to say much on that subject, yet as the question was asked me I thought I would occupy perhaps five minutes in saying something in regard to it. I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. 

          This might be a good quote to remember when R bigots drag out the KKK is Democrat trope.

  4. D's could bury Republicans for a century by making the populist case for increasing Social Security benefits with a few simple tax adjustments. 

    Instead Udall wanted to cut SS to save it. Bennet would never make any populist noise – it, and its beneficiaries, are beneath him and his Big Banker Buddies.

    They are both idiots. and they are both at fault, along with Blue Dog/ConservaDems everywhere, if we don't somehow bury the crazy, sociopathic Republican party that we are all faced with right now.

    1. The link doesn't go to a plan. just a dumbass piece claiming, among other things, that the 401{k} experiment failed.   It didn't.  From the time I was able to participate, I fed into mine.   Today, at 70, it is a vital emergency fund for my family that helped us weather a health crisis for my daughter.  I also just drew on it to help my son make a down payment on his first home.  Instead of trying to destroy 401{k} like this idiot wants, we need to strengthen them, primarily by making them more portable to reflect the much shorter tenures today's employees typically have with their companies.   Personal savings accounts, with a government contribution, are another good idea that Bill Clinton supported.   Senator Bennet is to be congratulated for defending the ability of middle class families  to save against the uncertainties of old age and the vagaries of our still inadequate social safety net.

      1. Those who are earning middle income saleries but barely getting by anyway and can't afford to save significant amounts in such accounts don't get much of a benefit, though. We need universal access to good health care that works for everyone. I do agree that health savings accounts are good for those who can afford to save. We had one and it was helpful. Also that Bennet isn't Satan.

        1. I'm not against Health Savings Accounts but they aren't much help to lower income people.   A 401k, in contrast, can benefit anyone with a steady job.

          I had the same car for 22 years and put money steadily into the 401k.  A friend with considerably higher income always had a late model car for hi,self and his wife.  And, yep, complained about not being able to save anything.  Another friend mocked my devotion to Pabst Blue Ribbon at $16 bucks for 30 cans.   He drinks craft beer at $12 bucks a six pack.  And he complained about not being able to save anything.  

          It's the old ant and grasshopper tale.   We need to help the truly poor and needy, give the young a good education without crushing debt and have a full health care system.  But no society an afford to give spendthrifts everything they want.  

          1. I only disagree in that many middle income people, not only poor, struggle to afford decent healthcare, even if they live sensibly. High deductible plans still cost a lot out of the monthly budget and if anything serious or even pretty minor but requiring a trip to the ER occurs families have to come up with thousands which is a big burden even on modestly middle class families, especially if they also have kids who want to go to college. 

            The breathing room and superior coverage we got for my husband when he qualified for medicare was a great relief.  Prior to that we considered any trip to the doctor for anything a luxury and avoided ordinary routine care. The same goes for me rght now but in less than one year, hurray, I'll have medicare too. I'll have good coverage for a fraction of what very high deductible coverage is costing me now.

            I don't plan to step foot in a doctor's office if I can help it until then. That's why I think medicare for all is the way to go so we can all feel free to seek timely medical care before serious problems manifest without busting the budget or doing without something else that we need, not a late model car. Knock wood, I'm fit and healthy and don't have too many bad habits.

            The poorest have medicaid, The affluent can afford the options available. It's the middle and lower income working folks who have to pay all they can possibly afford to scrape together every month for inadequate coverage that discourages seeking care until something serious happens, even with ACA. And the segment that falls into that range gets bigger as costs go up while the buying power of the majority's income doesn't and hasn't for decades. 

            ACA has been a partial answer but far from adequate to bring us into the 21st century and put Americans on an equal footing with the citizens of other western nations who have better access to quality healthcare for much less cost per person.

            1. I've always had Kaiser so deductibles were very small.  But yes, my plan for health care reform has always been to lower the age for medicare to birth!  I'd pay for it with a value added tax that would supplant the employer subsidies now given to the lucky insured workers.  The savings would be yuuuuge.  The problem is how to get there  ACA was a start and light years better than nothing.  But Canadian style single payer — aka medicare for all — is here we need to go.  Like you, I relaxed when I and my wife hit Medicare.  Hang on, lady, hang on.

          2. I love PBR.

            or any cheep beer , really.  I once had the chance to drink Heineken and Amsetel as the "local, make fun of cheep bear".  I bought rounds for everyone.  

             

            I dont don't like cheap vodka or scotch. 

            1. Argonaut sells a litre of Schmirnoff vodka for about $19. Who says there is no God!  Obviously, thats also where I get 30 PBR for $16.  As a Colorado native I suckled Coors at my Momma's bosom but I gave it up when the bastards pushed for right to work for less laws..

            2. PBR is the best of the lesser beers. Our beer stores only carry 30-packs of Keystone. I don't drink much so I try to get my savings from food. I never buy meat at our local, crappy Safeway unless discounted 30% or more.

              1. Totally agree. My college draft of choice in Illinois. Some friends brought back the supposedly legendary Coors from a visit to Colorado. It wasn't available in Illinois so we all were really psyched about trying it. It was very disappointing. Thought it tasted weak and watery.  If I'm going to have a cheap brew, make mine PBR any day. Nice microwbrew doesn't make much of a dent in the budget since we don't drink much beer anyway. A 30 pack would last us forever.

        3. And, why don't we cut middle income taxes?  Every middle class taxpayer would benefit and could use the savings for things like HSA accounts.

          And, yes, Bennet isn't Satan.  (I guess that needs to be said.)  In fact, I'm proud that he's my Senator.

            1. We already did that, at about the same time we declared war on two countries. First time we as a country weren't asked to bear the responsibility of fighting a (very expensive) war. Now the resulting hole in our national debt eats away at what our country could be spending productively…

              1. I checked the 2015 federal deficit and looks like it's going to be around 437 billion.  Down from the trillions in 2007 – 2009 but total is heading towards 20 trillion.  Republicans have been quiet about it because their forecasts that it would explode because of Obama's programs were wrong but they will trot it out as exhibit A why Sanders plans can't be allowed to be implemented.

                1. One of the biggest and flimsiest lies the rightie talking heads (and their stooges, the candidates) are trying to sell is the economy is weak…au contraire, conservative dipshits..a quarter of a million new jobs ..in February, no less. The unemployment rate (used for comparison purposes only) is at 4.9%.

                  The drop in petroleum prices has had the net effect of stimulating the economy. While industry workers have suffered, everyone else has had more money to put into their daily consumption. It has certainly made a difference in my budget.

      2. your excellent anecdote does not a statistic make. The 401k experiment enriched banks and enpoored savers and can in no way compete with SS in providing seniors with a base minimum stipend to live on through retirement. You want more links?

        But, my main point is that this simple political trick would indeed bury R’s for several generations, not just the next year or 2 as we are wont to do.

        1. When things go to hell in a hand basket people can lose most of their savings in private accounts. SS is always there. Pretty sure most of us agree that we shouldn't screw up SS but improving 401ks without hurting SS seems reasonable. 

        2. Only an idiot would try to ptivatize the Social Security .system. But it's even dumber to expect Ss alone to provide a comfortable retirement.  It was designed as a floor and replaces much more of a low income workers income than that of a middle class person.  That is where the 401k comes in.   Put your savings in an S andP 500 fund like Vanguard.  Then your final years will be spent in modest comfort.  It sure beats joining Occupy Denver and starving.

  5. Your thread caption is simply building up false hopes. Like the cockroaches after nuclear war, we will still see GOP candidates still running and getting elected to office after Trump.

      2. I can't see where Republicans will be in the same position of power if they can't stop Clinton or Sanders from getting elected and lose the Senate.  It is going to be psychologically devastating to them to lose those Supreme Court appointments that they demanded the next president gets to make and know that the court will not vote for any Citizen United precedents in the foreseeable future.  I like stuffing Clinton down their craws so that it is a total humiliation: 1) Obama cabinet member and political appointee – check, 2) woman – check & 3) Hillary Clinton – check.  Talk about blowing their fricking minds with failure.  Hang the triple losers label on them.  This is a rare opportunity like landing on the triple bonus square in Scrabble to capitalize on the moment and win.  It won't be the same old politics for them if it goes down that way.

  7. Republicans losing the Presidential election is important. The chance they will lose the Senate offers hope for Presidential appointments, including the Supreme Court.

    But few predict enough of a landslide election to change the House. And no one I've seen says any of the dysfunction at the national level will significantly impact the 12 governor's races, the control of state legislative houses or even make a major dent in the 900 seats lost in the last 8 years.

    Substantial voter registration drives and extensive GOTV efforts in 2016, 2018 and 2020 are going to be needed to impact the overall future of the Republican party.

    1. Substantial voter registration drives and extensive GOTV efforts in 2016, 2018 and 2020 are going to be needed to impact the overall future of the Republican party. 

      undoubtedly….

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

95 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!