However, there may be reasons that EST senators would want a shutdown. If these senators give the Tea Party its desired shutdown, the likelihood of being primaried goes down. The EST senator may also have a better chance of winning the nomination, but may have a lower chance of winning in the final election.
Tea Party senators (TP) may actually increase their numbers if the establishment prevents their desired government shutdown. That would prompt more challenges to EST senators, more TP nominees, and maybe less voter backlash in the final election.
So, what strategy is better for each group? Damned if I know. Another important question is what calculation will drive the decisions of each senator. Will it be the greater good, what is most likely to ensure reelection, or what is most likely to give the Senate majority to the GOP? Damned if I know again.
Image: ModeratePoli
Extra. More of my posts about the Senate.
1 comment:
A shutdown is one thing. Default is another, more serious thing. TPs seem to want both since their worldview (and political benefit) is chaos in government.
ESTs work for big business which likes stability and they make a lot of easy money through the government. They hate taxes (like the TPs) since in the simple accounting of business costs are bad.
So the TP strategy for reaching its ends runs headlong into the EST strategy of patient opportunism. If Hillary wins in 2016, you can expect a complete implosion of the GOP as neither strategy has worked to serve their constituencies' interests. Both wings claimed victory in 2010; neither admitted defeat in 2012. 2014 looks to be a wash.
The question is whether the GOP can cause disruption -- then blame it on the Democrats to an angry public. TPs say yes. ESTs aren't so sure.
Post a Comment