I think it's pretty clear that he'd pull more Dems than Reps. That would be a very bad thing in 2024, so you'll probably see a lot of encouragement from Republicans and an lot of discouragement from Democrats.
See https://www.vox.com/2018/7/23/17575768/swing-voters-exist and links from it for evidence of these claims.
The past five years have really done a number on us all. You're right about the huge divide that's developed, it's scary.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/09/08/opinion/repub...
https://oxford.universitypressscholarship.com/view/10.1093/o...
Which only got 100x worse in the last 1.7 years. I've traditionally identified as a (D) but holy moly... now I'm partyless....
Because from here in the Netherlands, it sure looks like the Republicans went totally off the deep end and aren't ever swimming back to shore...
Is COVID a hoax? "Can't rightly say!"
Does the climate emergency exist? "Some people say otherwise, it's none of my business."
Should American women be allowed abortions? "I really have no opinion."
Is Trump a delusional psychopath? "Can't see any difference between him and Biden!"
Do these people really exist?
----
I moved to Europe in 2016, and America seems increasingly weird to me.
Here you have these two right-wing parties already, and you're like, "No, I need another right-wing party".
Here it is over a year and a half into the worst pandemic in living memory, and no one's even talking about giving people medical care, something the rest of the developed world has had for generations.
Both parties compete to see who will increase the military budget faster and who will suck up to Wall Street harder.
Sure, the Democrats are sane and have flashes of competence; the Republicans are delusional raving loonies who lie every chance they can get and only have a tenuous grasp on reality. Big difference. But still, not so much range.
The majority of both sides, yes even those scary evil republicans you speak of, are reasonable people. To paint one side by their best people, and another by their worst, is not an argument in good faith. I'm sorry whatever media you've consumed has misled you a bit.
There's a simple litmus test.
Do you think workers should control the means of production? You're a socialist.
Do you think capital should? You're a capitalist.
The Republicans, Yang, and the Democrats are all capitalist parties.
Ask someone in a neighborhood about how many houses should be built and virtually all of them will tell you that theirs should have been the last one.
Ask someone about what is left and right in politics and they will move the middle around so they aren't either on the far left or right. As if their personal political opinions are some sort of core fundamental property that the universe is organized around.
Looking back in history, humans did the same thing with the solar system. We just tend to assume that we are at the middle of things.
I think Trump stopped being a viable figurehead for his own movement once the stop-the-steal movement and insurrection failed to prevent Biden's election, and date after date after date for Trump's triumphant return passed without incident. Republicans are going to have to move on from him either way.
We are still in uncharted waters.
Compared to Europe, Trump’s “immigrants are bringing crime” stuff is on the gamer end of the right wing.
Marijuana: Somewhat pro-legalization
Same-sex marriage: No
Immigration difficulty: Much harder
Reduce regulations: Somewhat disagree
Reduce police forces: Somewhat disagree
Universal health care: Strong agree
Science unimportant: Strong disagree
Raise minimum wage: Somewhat agree
Better Germany than elsewhere: Strong agree
Gun control: Stricter
Whites systematically advantaged: Somewhat disagree.
Abortion: Illegal in all cases.
Economy is unfair: Somewhat agree
Racial minorities can advance: Neutral
Discrimination against whites > blacks: Somewhat disagree
Raise taxes on high earners: Yes
Path to citizenship: No
Wealthy people spur innovation: Somewhat agree
Climate change: Somewhat important
Reduce income differences: Somewhat agree
I think I can cite coverage for each of these positions, and, in come cases, actual votes. Someone reading this actually is a German who pays attention to German politics and can correct me if need be. Remember: these questions are all relative to the American status quo.
I wound up "nearest" the "New Labor Party", but in the top-left quadrant (where there are no party clusters in the American VOTERS data set). As one would expect, as a German CDU member, I'd be much more socially conservative than the "liberal" parties NYT proposes --- but notably distant from the Patriot party! --- and much more economically liberal than the "conservative" NYT parties.
Mainstream German politics are definitely outside of the "liberal" consensus of the US; you're at least half right about that. But there are a lot of positions of the Trump-era Republican party that are way out of the mainstream of the conservative German consensus.
According to this CDU still opposes, though they proposed liberalization as part of compromise with greens: https://mjbizdaily.com/germany-rejects-recreational-marijuan...
On the science question, I think CDU would be a strong disagree. Germans are obviously science driven, but they don’t try to “sciencify” fundamental values questions like Americans. The premise of Christian democracy is religion as a source of truth and values in politics.
The CDU is not ideologically compatible with MAGA Republicanism. I think you're keying in on the immigration and abortion stuff, which is a fair point, but really they're just not in the vector space of US politics, which is sort of the point that NYT piece is making.
I agree that the CDU is distinct from MAGA Republicanism, insofar as they aren’t driven by a gratuitous “stick it to the libs” obstinance. At the same time, I think German conservatives are much closer to American conservatives than to American liberals in accepting values and religion driving policy, rather than science.
I cite abortion as the example, not because the CDU opposed abortion, but because of how they think about the issue. American liberals are pushing back against heartbeat abortion bans by arguing, for example, that an embryo doesn’t have a “heart” at 6 weeks, but instead it’s just developing cardiac cells. CDU folks don’t talk about abortion in scientific terms. Consistent with the NYT questionnaire, the issue of abortion isn’t a scientific one to them, it’s an issue of morality and religion. And they’re comfortable putting morality and religion into politics in a way that’s quite at odds with how American liberals view things.
https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=de&tl=en&u=https:/...
I know people who literally mailed back RNC donation solicitation envelopes coated in slurs and swear words after the election.
My opinion is that the party will reform under someone new. Trump is too old at this point to be relevant beyond 2024.
The establishment Republican leadership is unpopular for pretty much the reasons Democrats have been saying for 20 years: the base is much more fiscally moderate and cared more about social and cultural issues than the leadership.
A lot of Social Conservative policy is terrible for business (How much money was lost by states chasing those 'Bathroom Bill' regulations?). A lot of pro-business/Fiscal Conservative policy is difficult to square with traditional moral values (You want a traditional household with a full-time parent, but can't figure out that low wages make it impossible?)
Both factions seem willing to ignore this because they know they can win elections by their combined might.
I suspect if you look at it, you'll see that the party platform has become progressively more narrowly focused and sloganized as a result of that. Focusing on abortion and gay marriage to the exclusion of any more nuanced social issues throws a bone to the morality crowd without having to let them ask "isn't unconstrained billionaire greed a sin?" Simplifying all financial policy to "taxes bad" is pro-business but not as offensive to the morals crowd as admitting "systemic racism is probably leaving a lot of money and productivity on the table"
I suspect backing Trump is just further reaction on that scale. It worked once in dramatic style (they won an election largely seen a formality) so they're doubling down on it.
However, I'll say the same thing applies to a degree on the Democratic side, in a variant form. They've decided to go for "broad appeal" rather than "a few specific silo niches", which results in milk-toast moderate candidates that can't possibly offend anyone.
What's interesting is that any electoral success for either of these paradigms just reinforces them, but any failure never seems to cause rethink.