I don’t know whether to call this a “showdown” or a “meltdown.” Both sides seem to be provoking the highest stakes game possible– as you’ll read below, Chairman Jamie Franks is reported to have told members in advance to stay away from the meeting because it was illegal. If he’s right that the meeting was illegal, he wins that particular fight. The other side (which media reports identify with Barbara Blackmon) is saying that they had a properly noticed meeting. If they’re right, they win.
The media is personalizing this– saying it’s about Jamie Franks, or Barbara Blackmon, or Ike Brown. I think there are meaningful issues about control of the party committee and offices, and issues about listening and allowing everyone to be heard.
So one side has the potential to “win” and “vanquish” the opponent, I suppose. I think the contest here is who gets sole occupancy of a house everyone has agreed to set afire. A good definition-by-example of the term Pyrrhic victory.