Republicans can blame Trump-backed candidate losses on party's institutional failures
The primary system enabled the populist base to nominate election deniers as opposed to mainstream candidates who have may stood a better chance.
Summary: The Republican primary process, which enabled the base to vote in as nominees Trump-backed candidates as opposed to more mainstream alternatives, was responsible for the party’s failures in the mid-term election. Change the system or risk more defeats.
The nation’s founders, when setting up the Republic, established a system favoring indirect democracy over fears the populace and its capricious whims would have too much control over the government. For a party that values tradition and honoring the nation's roots, Republicans may do well to remember those principles in choosing political candidates in the wake of disappointing election results.
In many ways, an institutional failure in the Republican Party’s apparatus was the reason candidates handpicked by Donald Trump, whom many are now realizing is more toxic to the GOP than he’s worth, were given nominations. Those Trump-backed candidates dragged down Republicans across the board in a general election when the political winds were supposed to favor their victory. Instead, Democrats actually gained a seat in the Senate and any Republican majority in the House — if there will be a majority — will be so slim leadership will be hampered going forward. The mid-term election was supposed to be a “red wave” with an unpopular president in office, but the blue bulwark held strong.
When the initial results after the election starting rolling in, including news Mehmet Oz lost to John Fetterman, I have to say I didn’t initially share the belief the failure was due to Republicans going along with candidates endorsed by Trump. The sizable populist wing in the party’s base, I reasoned, would be less inclined to vote for politicians in the more traditional mold, such as a Mitt Romney or Paul Ryan clone. Arguably, those type of candidates would have fared even worse in the general election without having the enthusiasm of the Trump base.
But that doesn’t seem to hold water as we see more and more results. Trump-backed candidates, especially those who embraced his denial of the 2020 election results, went down in flames in a systematic way. The list went on and on: Blake Masters, who stated earlier on he shared Trump’s election denialism, was notable among these types of candidates who came up short. A number of House races Republicans could have won in the mid-term election, such as the bid against Elissa Slotkin in Michigan, ended up resulting in failure. As of the time of this posting, we still don’t know the results of the Arizona’s race, but Kari Lake was once considered a shoe-in and now has dwindling chances to eke out a win.
It has gotten to the point where a Democrat was declared the victor over an incumbent Republican endorsed by Trump in an R+13 district in Washington State.
In many of these cases, including Blake Masters in Arizona, the candidate was able to claim the Republican nomination in a crowded field by embracing Trump and his delusion he won the 2020 election. That was among Masters’ first stated policy positions in an early video to voters about his campaign. The Republican Party’s base, much of which is still captivated by Trump as their savor over anxieties about social change and economic woes, flocked to these candidates, which pushed them over the edge in the primaries over other contenders, many of whom with greater political or government experience.
(Also helping these Trump-backed candidates in the primaries, at least with Blake Masters and also with now Senator-elect J.D Vance, was massive financial support from Peter Thiel. The controversial decision of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee to spend money on Trump-backed candidates in hopes they would secure the nomination over more electable opponents also played a role.)
But that didn’t play out well for Republicans in the general election. For the Trump-endorsed candidates, it didn’t seem to matter whether they repudiated the election denialism, as was case with Mehmet Oz, or continued to make those claims front and center. Masters unabashedly appeared in a video of him receiving a call from Trump, who told him to say falsely the election was rigged and stolen at every occasion.
Keep in mind Trump himself did next to nothing to back these candidates once they were selected. The Save America PAC brought in a truckload of $135 million at the end of July, but had spent a little more than $36 million, much of which went to Trump’s expenses rather than aid the candidates he endorsed, and left $99 million in the bank. For context, the Republican National Committee had one-third of that in the bank, or $33.6 million, at the same point in time, according to a report in the New York Times.
So the institutions within the Republican Party allowing the candidates to claim the nomination ended up enabling their loss. The outcome fits perfectly in line with the erosion of institutions being responsible for an adverse impact on our society.
There was a time when bosses in the party system essentially chose the candidates that would be nominated, or at least limited the impact by the people. Some states continue to opting for caucuses or convention as oppose to primaries. But in most cases, the concept majority rule by everyday voters is the purest form of democracy has won out, enabling system that rely on their whims of the people, and in the nomination system the whims of the party’s base.
Going back to the old system, which had its own problems as it kept the power within the hands of the elites, may be impossible and unrealistic. I can imagine Trump being up in arms over a change that would give his followers a more limited impact, and his followers would act upon the change negatively — maybe even violently. Let’s face it, going back to the party boss system would essentially disenfranchise them from a key aspect of the political process. That’s not consistent with principles of democracy.
So I don’t have good explanation for the course forward. It might be just be faith in limited longevity and the realization Trump won’t be able to influence the system forever. Then again, no one knows for sure when that will happen and the wait might be longer than anyone thinks. Trump is set to announce his campaign for the 2024 election tomorrow, so we’ll keep hearing from for some time.
One thing that might help is finding some way to push back against or negate the Democratic Party’s spending in Republican primaries. Weren't they the ones up in arms over outside interference in the 2016 election, making the case the stolen emails from the Clinton campaign and Facebook memes, both orchestrated by Russian hackers, were responsible for brainwashing the electorate and Hillary Clinton’s loss?
In any event, it’s clear the institution by which the Republican Party selects its nominees set itself for failure. Republicans have just two years to fix the system, or risk blowing another election. With the U.S. presidency up for grabs, the stakes will be much higher.