Is the Republican establishment now a third party?

Some Republican insiders' push for a third-party alternative to Donald Trump suggests they are now outsiders in their own party. 

Gary Cameron/Reuters/File
Sen. Ben Sasse (R) of Nebraska speaks at the American Conservative Union annual conference in Maryland this March.

Remember when the GOP was so worried about Donald Trump running as a third party candidate in the general election that it pushed a loyalty pledge on presidential hopefuls? Now the wingtip is on the other foot. Disaffected Republican loyalists are talking about mounting a third-party effort to challenge Mr. Trump, instead.

It’s unclear if the chatter is serious. Right-leaning pundit Jennifer Rubin writes Thursday in The Washington Post: “There are several groups with access to funding, in communication with one another, working on a third party run.” 

William Kristol, Weekly Standard editor and a charter member of the #NeverTrump club, appears to be shopping around for a possible candidate. His primary target on Thursday was Sen. Ben Sasse (R) of Nebraska, the only Republican senator to say outright they won’t vote for the party’s new presumptive nominee. Senator Sasse has been flooding social media with posts imploring someone, anyone, to step up as an alternative to Trump and Hillary Clinton.

Sasse has said he can’t run because he still has three small kids at home. As a father with grown children, Mr. Kristol’s been telling him that time spent at home with youngsters is overrated. (Yes, he’s being sarcastic, but only a little.)

“Those three little kids will enjoy their dad’s 6-month campaign – do home schooling on the plane, see the country..." Kristol tweeted Thursday afternoon.

A third-party effort can’t win, of course. Ms. Rubin writes that there is a path, but it involves denying anyone a 270 Electoral College vote majority and throwing the election into the House of Representatives. That’s unrealistic. No reasonable possible candidate, including Sasse, former Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, ex-Gov. Rick Perry of Texas, or even Mitt Romney, has the star power and voter appeal to pull that off.

On the other hand, a third party “Real Republican” candidate might provide someone for worried down-ballot GOP candidates to reference. Look at GOP Sen. Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire, who’s locked in a tough reelection battle. She’s said she’ll support Trump, but won’t endorse him. What’s that mean? It’s a straddle the media will ask about for months to come. A factional GOP ticket could give her someone else to back without seeming too disloyal.

But the real problem about this unrest among the party elite is that it’s about them as much as about real GOP voters. They’re appalled by Trump and think he’ll lead the party to defeat, but lots of rank-and-file party members don’t agree with that, and are happy with Trump. Who was their choice, after all.

Right now, Trump’s got a 59 percent favorable rating among Republican and Republican-leaning voters, according to Gallup. His unfavorable rating in the party is 35 percent, for a plus-24 net favorable. 

Among GOP voters, Trump is far more popular than, say, Mr. Romney, who is now underwater with a minus-34 percent favorability among Republicans. Ted Cruz? He’s underwater too, with a minus-6 net favorable rating.

Yes, Trump enters the general election as the most unpopular presidential candidate since the advent of polling, overall. But that’s because his ratings with Democrats and independents are truly abysmal. Many in the GOP elite/establishment class see that and are worried about the consequences. Some continue to cast about for third-party alternatives. The larger Republican electorate does not feel that same way.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.