The 4 different paths the Republicans could take in this election

The Republican party has one obvious aim for the upcoming primary, to settle on a candidate who can defeat Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election and establish the party in both houses of Congress as well as the White House.

The goal for any party is to win elections and offer their people a chance to wield power and authority in the country, the primary is a process for determine which people will be the ones to do so.

In a nation of 322 million people, there are many different demographics and factions that are vying to wield power. In the 2008 election, 131.3 million people voted, in the 2012 election that decreased to 126.8 million. You can probably expect the 2016 election to big turnout numbers again as both sides will be antsing to take charge of the most powerful position in the country.

All of that is front and center in the minds of the GOP, but the bigger issue right now is the direction this party is actually heading. Which factions and interests are going to lead this party to try and grab a bigger share of the electorate and offer the Republicans control of the government?

There are two main directions the country could go in with four primary options.

Direction 1: Rebuke the establishment and reset the course

The infuriating thing for GOP voters about the last several victorious elections is that tea party and conservative elements within the party have turned out and carried the party to power only to see their candidates refuse to take any risks in order to protect their positioning as the party in power.

There are now movements within the party to label various establishment figures as "cuckservatives" meaning conservatives who would see the nation cuckolded by immigration that changes the demographics and values of the nation.

Voters who want to see the party reeled in and brought firmly under the control of the factions that put them in power in the first place have two good options in the primary, and each one would take the party in a different direction.

Option 1: Donald Trump and nativism

Donald Trump is a pre-cursor to what's already happening in Europe as nationalist/nativist parties are winning more and more elections by offering to protect a given nation's values and ethnic identity against the demographic changes in the region.

All of Trump's platform issues are about putting American interests first and American voters first, and for that reason he actually represents a potentially new coalition and political party than what the Republican party has become. Lower middle-class white American voters love Trump, as do many of the country's more Americanized minority elements who want to see the government protect what they have rather than offering the nation's resources to new migrants and populations.

The problem with nativism in the U.S. is that the country's basic values and identity don't fully rest in one ethnic identity. It's hard to have a party or leader that can fully capture the Anglo-American identity and bring everyone aboard into that identity without coming across as racist or exclusivist.

Trump has the right kind of personality and story to do this, but you wonder what the future of the party would look like if it went in that direction. Are there other nativist leaders that could win office within the GOP? Could the party's other leaders successfully pivot in that direction?

Viability

As I mentioned, Trump has a better shot than many want to admit at winning the election against Hillary for a few reasons.

First of all, the coalition of voters he could build by expanding on the typical GOP base (who are unlikely to go with Hillary and the likely discontents too power-hungry to choose a 3rd option) is actually fairly strong. Trump has the personality the draw in hispanic and black Americans who will be drawn to his success and plain-sense policy ideas.

Secondly, Trump is likely to do quite well in head-to-head confrontations with Clinton, who prefers to take subtle jabs that Donald would easily see through and readily counter. Republicans have long set themselves back by refusing to match fire with fire when confronting Democratic candidates. Trump isn't going to fall into that trap.

Problems

The biggest problem Trump would have is in garnering the needed money and support from various establishment elements within the Republican party. The neo-con faction in particular, which is eager to use the Republican party to have the means to project American power around the world, might actually prefer to take their chances with a true neo-liberal like Hillary rather than hoping they could suck up to Donald enough to gain access to his White House.

Another problem is whether Trump could survive with value voters after team Clinton shines a light on all of his various comments and deeds over the last few decades. If Evangelicals and values voters aren't turning out then no Republican is going to win an election.

Option 2: Ted Cruz and western Christendom

Ted Cruz is THE dominant figure fighting the Republican party and pushing it to actually serve the constituents they have relied on for winning elections rather than the bigger donor factions of the party that promise money and cushy living in D.C.

His primary strength is his understanding that war is determined on three levels: The physical, the mental, and the moral level.

The physical is the least important, the mental level has more influence on victory, and the moral is the most powerful. Cruz wields legitimate moral authority and understands that fighting and losing IS powerful and often actually brings victory.

Really that's a primary lesson of Christianity, where Christ laid down his life and absorbed evil and defeat only to be exalted and made king. Incidentally, Cruz represents evangelicals and classical conservatives.

The rise of this faction is something of an inevitability, I think and hope, as the nation's current descent into godlessness and excess is unsustainable both demographically and financially. The likely historical counter-swing is going to look something like Ted Cruz or Donald Trump whenever it happens and in the U.S. where the demographics are more multi-cultural it's more likely to look like Cruz.

Cruz would also likely appoint the kinds of people into judicial and executive offices that would have a big impact on the country, much like Obama has done.

This is the most underrated aspect of the Presidency and it's one where Cruz is stronger than most other candidates.

Viability

Cruz has been bringing new donors into the Republican party and is basically an example of Evangelical culture, which is becoming the dominant force in American Christianity, realizing that we can actually produce our own businesses and leaders to represent us rather than trying to have a seat at the table with other interests.

Of course, Evangelicals aren't numerous and strong enough to do that on our own yet but Cruz is looking to bolster the ranks with small government/liberty minded folks of the type who were supporting Ron Paul in 2012 and with nativists that just want the government to fight for American values.

He's also a staunch supporter of Israel, participating in the GOP's attempt to woo Jewish voters into the fold after they felt betrayed by Obama's Iran deal and their inability to convince Democrats to stop it. Jewish-Americans don't have many votes but their high number of billionaire donors and media platforms make them a powerful group within the country. What's more, they are starting to question whether the multi-cultural Obama coalition seizing more power in American politics is actually going to be in their interests.

Overall, Christianity is a stronger and more uniting flag to get people behind than the selfish-interests of pure nativism.

Problems 

While he has strategies and ways in place to build a coalition of typical Republican elements while bringing in disenchanted or unengaged small-government folks and Christians, Cruz is also despised by the typical establishment figures whom he has built his reputation by bashing. It'd be hilarious to see how Republicans responded to Cruz sitting in the bully pulpit and dictating the agenda for the country and I imagine many of them are eager to avoid that outcome, even to the point of betrayal.

There's also the question of whether the classic conservative elements that Cruz represents are still numerous enough to win a general election against Hillary. His hope would have to be that he can get much better turnout than McCain or Romney (almost certain) while also making inroads with minorities and moderate suburbanites and I'm not sure how he'd attempt to do that.

Clinton would pound him on the gay rights issue, although I'm not sure what either of them would do to change the trajectory the nation is already on, and he could lose moral authority there with suburban voters.

Direction 2: Consolidation within the establishment

Don't expect the establishment to give up easily, they've fought hard to appeal to the nativist, small-government, and evangelical elements within the party that Trump and Cruz represent and are going to do all they can to find a palatable conservative to appease those elements while giving them a chance to continue things as they've been going.

Their problem is that they don't fully understand that they are rapidly losing legitimacy with Americans who see the country changing with new demographics and values and want their political leaders to fight like mad to prevent their country from being transformed.

The establishment doesn't want to stop the nation from being transformed, they just want to be positioned to help steer the ship while that happens. While the Democrats are guided largely be a desire to transform the country into one with their own values and where they can govern and rule the state, the Republicans are often more motivated by preserving the state and their position in it. That's going to become increasingly divergent from the goals of their constituents who want to see the country transformed back.

This goal of theirs is actually a more laudable goal than it sounds like but the result is a gradual ceding of values and direction within the country as they are sacrificed at the altar of stability.

Another problem is that the establishment isn't producing the leaders that are inspiring the voters. They were all-in early on JEB without realizing that he lacks the alpha-male personality of his brother and his weak personality has been brutally exposed by going up against the likes of Donald Trump.

Worse, in Jeb's death-throes he's been doing damage to Marco Rubio who is one of the better establishment fallback options. Anyways, here are the establishment's two best options for maintaining control of the party and beating Hillary in 2016:

Option 1: Marco Rubio and the New American Century

Marco Rubio's greatest strength is articulating what conservatism could look like in the 21st century when America is increasingly changing into a multi-cultural empire that isn't defined primarily by Anglo-American values and culture.

He was elected as a tea party guy but his attempt to pass immigration reform that didn't include deportation or even increased border security got him lambasted as another "cuckservative." Even still, he has a lot of conservative bonafides as an adamantly pro-life voter, a proponent of limited government and private sector solutions, and an advocate of aggressive, neo-conservative foreign policy which is still popular within the party's base for some reason.

His plans to overhaul education to allow Americans to have a chance at joining the skilled labor workforce, breaking the power of liberal Universities, and making family formation more affordable are all home-run issues both for drawing in voters as well as for setting up the Republican party for long-term success.

Viability

Marco Rubio would likely get strong base turnout running against Hillary provided that Trump or some other anti-immigration 3rd party candidate wasn't on the ticket. In that event he'd be exceptionally vulnerable.

He could somewhat counter the "first female president" Clinton platform with the "first Latino president" and "a successfully immigration story" narratives and also has policy ideas and the personality to appeal to suburban and minority voters that Republicans struggled to win over against Obama.

Finally, Rubio is a guy the establishment could get behind with all of their guns. Granted, some of their ordinance seems to be off these days, but the sheer money and numbers would be enormous if backing the right candidate.

Problems

Jeb has outlined some of Rubio's problems, namely that he's a young man with a questionable record of being organized and disciplined with his personal life. On the other hand, he has a "every day guy" quality about him that all of those lines of attack might just highlight.

Immigration is the biggest problem, as many GOP voters aren't going to want to hear about how the GOP can pivot and change with the times but how electing Rubio will mean victories for classic conservative values.

Hillary would try to make this about experience and a proven record vs a young, inexperienced guy who doesn't know what he's doing but ask McCain how that argument went against Obama.

Option 2: Chris Christie and law and order

The biggest weakness of the Democratic party is the potential fracturing of Obama's coalition without Obama being present to unite them.

In particular, the #BlackLivesMatter movement is the albatross around the party's neck and it's quietly the biggest problem for Hillary's campaign. When Clinton was president he looked to protect Americans from inner city criminality with "mass incarceration" policies to clean up the streets. Now Hillary is trying to distance herself from that part of her record and stay on the good side of this movement or else risk not benefitting from the massive black turnout that ushered Obama into office.

The first and more important priority for a state is preserving order and security for its citizens and if it appears that the GOP candidate will do that better than the Democrat that's going to be a huge deal for the Latino, Asian, and even black voters that don't want to live in cities where black criminals always get the benefit of the doubt against the police and where cops began to retreat and allow things to get bad...as is happening in many locations where #BlackLivesMatter protests have occurred.

It's also a majorly losing issue with white American who are living in suburbs or trying to re-gentrify cities but don't want to raise their families in crime-ridden areas. None of these groups may admit this is a major issue, but you'll see it reflected in their voting choices in November, I promise you. Take a look at Republican share of the Asian vote in 2014 after the Ferguson riots compared to how they did in 2012 or 2010 and you'll see what I mean.

This should be a subtle but major issue for whichever Republican wins office but it would be a majorly winning issue for Chris Christie, a former U.S. Attorney and governor. I'm not sure he's realized this, or that the establishment, ever eager to avoid being labelled as racists, realize it either. But it's there and it's true.

Viability

Christie is currently lower in the polls than Ben Carson, Carly Fiorina, and maybe Jeb so why am I including him?

Fiorina is simply not viable. Her record at HP would see her destroyed running against Clinton, however tough she talks now, and she was unable to seize on any of her momentum after the 2nd debate. She's going to fade into the background and perhaps end up in someone's cabinet.

Carson is not a serious candidate and his endorsement of that "autism-cure" and things of that ilk are going to see him drop like a rock soon enough. Evangelical voters have a much better and more viable option in Ted Cruz that they'll be rallying around soon. I suspect much of his popularity is that he'll say things as a black man that white voters want to be said but which they feel nervous to say aloud. He's a token, helping to push forward both evangelical values and the idea that a black man in American could theoretically be a conservative Republican.

Jeb is done, everyone is saying so which is when you know it's all over. There's also Kasich, but he doesn't have the "law and order" credentials of Christie and has foolishly pissed off the base with his lines of rhetoric of late. He already wasn't popular with the establishment so infuriating the base was probably the dumbest thing he could have done.

If the establishment determines that Rubio is unready or not strong enough that leaves Christie as their best bet for bringing in the guns behind. He's not especially conservative but he's capable of making a case for stronger borders and a pro-life agenda that could rally the troops while bringing the law and order angle to bear with swing voters and crushing Hillary.

Problems

His issue with the bridge and his people possibly abusing their power to punish political rivals...that's not going to play well with national scrutiny even if he is cleared and it's going to make it harder to press the Benghazi/email scandals that the GOP is currently intending to use to disqualify Hillary with swing voters.

I think the law and order angle would trump that and is secretly a stronger tactic, but I'm not confident that the GOP will recognize that and properly press it to their advantage.

He's also not especially popular with the party base and was perceived as swinging the election to Obama when he hugged him on the Jersey shores after Hurricane Katrina and he is not known for being a small government candidate but more of a establishment figure that would work with what the country has.

Also, he's overweight and something of a loud-mouth, which may not play well when lined up across a small blonde woman, however much of a nag she can sound like in her own right.

Seriously, he might be one of the strongest leaders and best candidates but I'm not sure that will be clear to everyone which is a major weakness.

So which direction will the party go in? I'd rank them in order of likelihood as:

1. Rubio
2. Cruz
3. Trump
4. Christie

Which direction do you think the party should go in?