I don't understand how this can be a viable statement. While I reserve skepticism for polling procedures and ridiculous media bias, the reality is that there's a significant population within the population that supports these goons. THOSE supporters are the body of the Republican who have been following such a divisive narrative from these "kind of people" up until this point. Don't get me wrong; yes, these candidates are denounced vehemently by their respective institutions, but the reality is that they're reaping the benefits of what they've sown. Only now do they see the power of such a narrative over time.The two truly viable candidates left in the Republican Party's ... are loathed by the kind of people who make the Republican Party a viable national institution: its donors, elected officials, court intellectuals, and leading activists.
So the point being made is that ever since the Southern Strategy, the platform of the Republican Party has had sops for the proles and meat for the aristocracy. As it's the aristocracy that provides lobbying money but the proles that give you your votes, you need to ban gay marriage while also repealing the inheritance tax. You need to promote prayer in school while gutting environmental regulations. You need to rail about terkerjerbing immigrants while reducing the marginal tax rates on corporations. Because while the Democratic party is, historically, a social construct the Republican party is a fiscal one. I mean, read this shit. Dude was effectively to the left of Clinton, never mind Cruz or Trump. It was the sound trouncing of Goldwater in '64 that launched the GOP on a quest for "values" because they simply didn't have the numbers to do what they want (which is 'make money' pure and simple). So when they say "donors, elected officials, court intellectuals and leading activists" they mean "everybody that isn't the Tea Party." More here.
Ahhh, thank you for the insight and clarity. It's relatively hard to get some solid political backstory and history leading up to now in a college environment as of now. The Southern Strategy has made sense from what I've taken in history up until this point. Wasn't much time to delve into Goldwater, aside from him being framed by LBJ as a nut. Stringing together votes from one side and money from the other side of the socio-political spectrum has seemed to be ass-backwards in my view. Concise and to the point. Thank you. Especially for that link to goobster's post. I had attended FL American Legion's Boys State (essentially a supposed grooming program for potential future politicians) that was a true eye opener for how some of those inner cogs work in government. It's refreshing to see valid, backed insight into all of this. . .Because while the Democratic party is, historically, a social construct the Republican party is a fiscal one.
So when they say "donors, elected officials, court intellectuals and leading activists" they mean "everybody that isn't the Tea Party." More here.