Ironically, during this election cycle I have come to realize that these two are not necessarily linked. 

 

Republicanism (As best as i can tell): In general is a watered down conservative ideology.  It's based on private sector solutions to problems, protecting the second amendment, and limitted but somewhat frquent intervention into the capital markets (the economy).  It's based on generally low taxes but within a progressive framework.  It's based on preserving the right of every person to express their deeply held convictions while trying to manage the interaction of inalienable rights. 

 

The Republican Party is just the opposition party to the Democrats. 

 

Over the last 8 years Republicanism has been under assault and in some precints you could say that it's onl life support.  Average people on the street couldn't tell you about much of American History, but they can recite the communist manifesto.  Most people have lost interest in religious freedom, they just care about making sure they get to see the Gender Unicorns. 

 

Now we have a candidate for president that promises Higher taxes, weakening the second amendment, massive entitlement expansion, massive intervention in the private economy, mass amnesty, and possibly even cap and trade.  That's nothing to say of what 12-16 years (Obama plus prospect of Clinton Presidencies) would mean in creating progressive hegemony in the executive bureaucracy and the judicial oligarchy.

 

Why then would so many members of the republican establishment, including the last 3 nominees for president, be seemingly OKAY with a Clinton Victory?

 

That's because despite the fact that REPUBLICANISM is being driven even further from the mainstream of American popular culture, The republican PARTY is thriving!  As of this morning they held both houses of congress at the federal level.  They will keep the house and they have a good shot at the senate.  They hold a majority of the gubernatorial seats, they hold more seats in state legislatures than any time in the history of the party.  They can still fundraise and control the local levers of power, despite having basically zero MEANINGFUL IMPACT getting their policies through. 

 

Now if you are saying that this view is shortsighted you're right.  After a while, the benches can be so stacked that it doesn't matter what you pass at the state level (See prop 8 in California) but that doesn't mean that a lot of republican establishment figures place a heck of a lot less interest on WINNING  or making meaningful change than they do holding on to their seats of power. 

---