For some reason I can’t get the wording for the third Outcome to flow.
There are three possible results from this rise of ultraconservative candidates. First, the ultra-conservatives remain within the Republican Party. They continue to push Republican candidates on both a local and federal level farther to the right. This hurts Republicans when it comes to moderates or possibly weakly aligned Democrats. However, the Republicans do get keep the ultra-conservative voting block, even though it is much smaller currently than the votes they are losing. With this outcome the ultra-conservative group still remains politically significant because they would retain a good amount of influence within one of the two big parties. The second outcome is that the ultra-conservatives break away from the Republican Party and create their own Party. This costs Republicans votes in elections when they run against this new parties candidates. This would allow for the Republicans to nominate more moderate candidates which would make it a lot easier to win over moderates. However, this result is less likely because the ultra-conservative candidates and voters know this would make them irrelevant. They would become just another third party and have next to no chance to influence big elections. The third and final option is that this trend reverses itself. If times get less desperate, like the economy improving or the withdrawal from foreign wars, then we will probably see a drop in ultra-conservative voters and therefore a drop in ultra-conservative candidates. Remember there was a long period of time where ultra-conservative voters, while there were a lot fewer, were winded seamless into the Republican Party. This is a possibility again, they could just continue to vote for more moderate Republicans. This would allow the Republican Party to keep this ultra-conservative voting block as well as appeal to moderate voters giving the Republicans a much better chance of winning. They would still have some influence and gradually pull candidates slightly to the right, but for the most part things would return to a 1984 level of cohesiveness.
One reason you may be having trouble is the fact that the first and third outcomes are intertwined, and belong as almost one example. Both state that the Republicans stay together, but the difference is in how cohesive they are. An approach combining the two may help.
“Remember there was a long period of time where ultra-conservative voters, while there were a lot fewer, were winded seamless into the Republican Party.”
This is the sentence that confuses me. I think the wording should improve and there might be a typo in there, but if you’re trying to point out that ultraconservatives were not necessarily distinguished years prior whereas they are now you could give more a context as to when exactly that happened. I’m sure the US was in a different position politically with their government. Maybe explaining the context for the last point will make it easier for you to discuss? Also, I would relate the “rise of ultraconservatives” that you mention at the beginning of this paragraph to your thesis.
Unless explained in a different part of your essay, I would explain why the economy or foreign wars caused the rise of ultra-conservative candidates. Also, don’t say “we will probably see,” this is what you’re trying to argue; eliminate ‘probably’ and sound more confident. Do you explain 1984 anywhere in the paper? I have no knowledge of previous elections and this seems kind of random to me. In my opinion, I think the flow issue comes into play in one particular sentence more than others…”Remember there was a long period of time where ultra-conservative voters, while there were a lot fewer, were winded seamless into the Republican Party.” I don’t know what it is, but re-wording this sentence could help solve the problem.