Yes, I agree, and to extract something from your posts, I'd like to emphasize the analysis of what you expect to take place within the Republican party. As you say, the Democratic party is merely a loose convention of people, groups etc not forcing their candidate to fit every single sub organizations twisted way of seeing the world. This strategy has paid off ever since 2008, and probably made Bill Clinton possible, even though ole Bush didn't get the significance of the economical aspect, and by that paved the way for William Jefferson Clinton, quite a presidential name, by the way.
The Republicans, on the other hand, is forced by sub groups which do not comprehend politics, but keep telling everybody they are the only ones comprehending it. These people are major republican obstacles. You don't win the general by consultating every single organization contacting you, promising them that your politic will be reflecting their political "insight".
Republicans might should acknowledge that they cant make everybody happy, but they can make enough people happy to win the general. Even though that means some extremists are leaving the party. The strategy of this general appears to be a "make most folks mad" strategy.
The Republicans, on the other hand, is forced by sub groups which do not comprehend politics, but keep telling everybody they are the only ones comprehending it. These people are major republican obstacles. You don't win the general by consultating every single organization contacting you, promising them that your politic will be reflecting their political "insight".
Republicans might should acknowledge that they cant make everybody happy, but they can make enough people happy to win the general. Even though that means some extremists are leaving the party. The strategy of this general appears to be a "make most folks mad" strategy.
Concurrently ideological dogma grew on the Left.
The main problem with those sub-groups on the Right is that they became incapable of practical consensus within their own smoke filled rooms for various reasons. You really can deliver messages people disagree with and get elected. You simply have to show strength and common cause with the voter on some level (simple in conception, an art to execute).
I think a lot of it has to do with arrogance. The conservative movement cemented into something it was ill-suited to be with multiple groups vying for petty political influence. Saviors of the Post-Cold War Republic one and all.
It gets absurdly comical sometimes. I've had interactions with this one group which claimed that the writings of Frederick Douglas and their application would somehow galvanize and propagate conservatism. One woman had this vision of kids wearing Frederick Douglas shirts. Talk about delusions of grandeur.