Sink to swim: Republicans' only reasonable course

Republicans interested in the long-term viability of their party may be wise to change radio stations. Turn off the conservative talking heads who can't get past their intense dislike of Hillary Clinton. Turn on sports radio. There, they might learn the value of "tanking" and how it could save the future of the Republican Party.

The pundits on sports radio understand that sometimes it's necessary to lose in order to win. That's especially true in the National Basketball Association, where one or two stars can be the difference between an also-ran and a playoff contender. Consequently, there is a long-standing NBA tradition of tanking — not intentionally losing, but not trying to win. The goal of a tanking team is to improve its chances in the college draft lottery, hoping to find that singular talent who can become the nucleus of a winning club.

It's time for smart Republicans to tank on Donald Trump. For starters, no one who cares about the country's future should support the election of a candidate who promises to isolate the U.S. diplomatically, economically and socially. Trump's misogyny, racism and vitriol can't simply be written off as that was then, this is now. The most duplicitous "October Surprise" is a candidate who tries to use the general-election campaign to repudiate the very essence of the promises and platform used to win a party's endorsement.

Nor is defeating Hillary Clinton enough of a reason to vote for Trump, no matter the contempt some conservatives have for her. The fact is, the fall campaign will be so ugly and devoid of issues that whoever wins likely will find it impossible to unite the country around a partisan agenda. Clinton will have other barriers to success, starting with Bernie Sanders. Sanders won't be the Democratic Party's nominee, but he has won its heart. Liberals who have been gleeful watching Ted Cruz and his ilk destructively push Republicans to the far right may soon see what the edge of the cliff looks like from the left.

Meanwhile, the next president probably will preside over a domestic economy that, while not about to fall into another Great Recession, seems likely to struggle through at least a few years of stagnation. And, of course, there is the political gridlock now ingrained in Washington politics. The U.S. House of Representatives seems almost certain to remain in Republican control no matter how much damage Trump does to the GOP brand. The Paul Ryan-led House will assure that either gridlock or conservative orthodoxy prevails in public policy.

Much the same can be said about the fate that would await a President Trump. Blue-collar workers who — with much justification — feel they have gotten the short end of the economic stick aren't loyal to a New York billionaire, but to his promised vision of a reinvigorated U.S. An angry constituency will get a whole lot angrier when Trump the president can't deliver on what Trump the candidate promised.

The fact is, when you look at the path that must be traveled by either Clinton or Trump to get to the White House, the ugly fall campaign, the polarized politics that will continue to dominate Washington and the challenging four years ahead, smart money would bet on a one-term president regardless of who wins in November.

A one-term presidency, though, doesn't mean Democrats would be tossed aside in 2020. A Clinton administration could fail without doing great damage to the Democratic brand. Put aside all the Republican rhetoric, and Clinton is a middle-of-the-road Democrat. Her policies — successful or not — aren't likely to undermine the ability of a Democratic candidate to win four years from now.

Trump poses a different challenge for his party. It should raise eyebrows when many Republicans justify their support for Trump not on the basis of his issues, but on the belief that he is creating a bigger Republican Party. The facts tell a different story. Yes, Trump will set a record for total votes won in primaries, in part because of the increasing prominence of presidential primaries. But, as the Washington Post reported, "he'll also probably end up as the highest-vote-getting candidate with the lowest percentage of the vote since 1968."

Trump advocates will claim his winning percentage is low only because of the crowded field of GOP candidates. Yet analysis by Politico and others points out that Trump isn't attracting people who never vote; rather, he has prompted some Republicans who ordinarily vote only in general elections to also vote in primaries.

The right-leaning Red State blog cited analysis of the Virginia primary to underscore the point. More than 1 million Virginians voted in this year's primary, three times the 2012 turnout. Only about 58,000 were new voters — the other 950,000 or so were regular primary voters or Republicans who are general-election voters with or without Trump in the race.

The 58,000 new voters in the Virginia primary — even if all of them are Trump-ites — wouldn't overcome President Obama's 150,000-vote margin of victory over Mitt Romney in that state in 2012.

The odds are stacked against any Republican winning in 2016, and especially one as polarizing as Trump. As many data experts have pointed out, if Clinton holds the 20 states and District of Columbia that have voted for the Democratic candidate in the last six presidential elections, she will be just 28 electoral votes short of victory. By contrast, reliably Republican states put only 102 electoral votes in Trump's pocket — 168 short of the needed total.

Trump has to overcome those barriers with far less money than Clinton, with a party that rapidly is breaking into warring factions and with an electorate that mostly doesn't like him.

Pundits want to tout Trump's chances as part of their mea culpa for dismissing his candidacy last year. The rush to predict a Trump victory seems less political insight and more homage to the Who, who sang that they "Won't Get Fooled Again": "I'll tip my hat to the new constitution; Take a bow for the new revolution; Smile and grin at the change all around … ."

But people are getting fooled again. Trump won't win. Instead, he will bring down other Republican candidates, especially those running for the U.S. Senate. Money and interest groups will assure that the synonym for every GOP Senate candidate is "Donald Trump." And not in a good way.

Parties recover from one-year election disasters. But Trump's candidacy threatens a long-term realignment of the Republican Party, also not in a good way. At a time when there is both a great need for thoughtful conservative policies and an opportunity for those who offer new solutions to address economic disparities, environmental protection, education and other priorities, the GOP will be defined by a bully who plays on the desperation of people. When Democrats are being pulled to the left by Sanders and others, America's future is not well-served by an impotent conservative agenda or the false promises of Trump.

What are loyal Republicans left to do in 2016? It is too late to stop Trump's nomination. Some Republicans may find they can swallow hard and vote for Clinton or a third-party candidate. Others may decide just to skip the top of the ticket.

Whatever they decide in the privacy of the polling booth, though, Republicans who care about the country's future should publicly reject what Trump represents. Passive opposition to Trump allows his contempt for thoughtfulness to define the GOP and divide the country.

Giving up the White House doesn't mean Republicans have to concede the public policy agenda to liberals. There are smart conservatives seeking office at every level of government. Republicans can invest their time and resources in these candidates, remembering that Bill Clinton was a better president when he had to work with congressional Republicans who had a clear and compelling vision for the future. The same will be true of Hillary Clinton.

Republicans should look past the next four years — to the next generation. The new Republicans are out there, but they need to be unshackled from Trump. Today's Republicans have shown they can bring the country and Congress to gridlock. The country needs more. We need conservative ideas that deliver a future of promise and opportunity.

A better future for Republicans — and for America — starts only if GOP voters are willing to tank the 2016 presidential election.

Tom Horner is a public-relations consultant and was the Independence Party of Minnesota's 2010 candidate for governor.