#NeverTrump GOP endorsements LATEST: Graham and Lee voted McMullin

[Fuzzy Bear]

http://theresurgent.com/coming-to-terms-with-trump/

I read this article all the way through and find it compelling.  It has caused me to reevaluate some of my conclusions.

I now see logic in folks not wanting to choose either candidate.  Before reading this, I viewed much of that as folks being cowards, wanting to rationalize that they were still Republicans, even while engaging in a serious break from party loyalty.

Erick Erickson is done reconsidering, endorses McMullin

He would have made a better mark for his case if he backed Johnson and Weld, who should be acceptable candidates for most #NeverTrump Republicans, except the neocon types.  I think part of the issue is that Johnson and Weld are running as a member of a third party and not as independents, which makes it complicated for those who wish to remain Republicans.

I'm not sure.  I don't really understand the whole idea of voting for third parties in the first place, but no social conservative would vote for Gary Johnson.

Yes, Johnson (and the LP in general) are pro-choice, which is a deal-breaker for Erickson.

Erickson's position is, in his own words, that Clinton is Anti-American, but Trump is Un-American.  He explains how, so I'm not going to rehash that.  But Johnson and Weld are neither of those, and are running on a limited government platform.  If they were elected, a Republican Congress could support their small government proposals, then beat them down on social issues when they need beating.  Given the context Erickson lays out, I fail to see that this should be such a deal-breaker by his logic. 

[Fuzzy Bear]

I think Graham will come around. Fmr. Governor Sununu endorsed Trump today by the way.

Why would Graham endorse Trump? What does he have to gain? He isn't up for reelection until 2020, he'll probably get a primary challenger anyway, and there's a good chance he'll retire (and I wouldn't blame him).

Graham signed the pledge, as a former presidential candidate. Priebus said he plans some sort of punishment, I guess his punishment may be support of the primary challenger, but that would be strange as whoever runs against him is likely to be an anti-establishment candidate (I'd guess Mulvaney is the most likely).

The punishment would be loss of his choice committee assignments in the Senate.  If Priebus could prevail on GOP Senators to enforce that, of course.

[Fuzzy Bear]

I think Graham will come around. Fmr. Governor Sununu endorsed Trump today by the way.

Why would Graham endorse Trump? What does he have to gain? He isn't up for reelection until 2020, he'll probably get a primary challenger anyway, and there's a good chance he'll retire (and I wouldn't blame him).

Two reasons:

1.  Party bolters in the South have always been primaried, and have usually lost.  Most of the 1928 Hoovercrats were primaried and lost in 1930 and 1932.  Oddly enough, a number of Dixiecrats lost primaries, especially in states where Truman was the Democratic nominee and Thurmond a third-party pick.

2.  Graham has some pretty good Senate committee assignments, and it's not beyond the GOP to take away his subcommittee chairmanships.

[Fuzzy Bear]

I expect Murkowski, Lee, and Flake to say, in the end, that they are voting for Trump.  I don't expect them to campaign for him, but they'll give that much of an "endorsement".  Trust me.

[Fuzzy Bear]

I don't know much about Schwarz.  But Sherwood Boehlert and Claudine Schneider were definitely NOT conservative Republicans.  Boehlert was very much a moderate, middle-of-the-road Republican, and Schneider was one of the last members of Congress that could be described as a liberal Republican.

[Fuzzy Bear]

When was the last time RP supported the LP candidate, 2004 I think?

He supported the Constitution Party in 2008, snubbing Bob Barr and John McCain.

Did Ron Paul simply not endorse in 2012?  Romney's folks were trying real hard to get him to endorse the ticket, but I don't remember him ever doing so.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Why haven't Little Marco and Pat Toomey said anything yet?

Because they're in no-win situations.  Either position will cost them votes they can't afford to lose, especially Toomey. 

Little Marco is ahead in the polls.  Toomey's supposedly behind.  

Rick Scott and Pam Bondi went all in for Trump.  I don't think Marco will alienate them.  He'll "run his own campaign".  Florida is, very much, every man for himself in electoral politics.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Portman unendorses, will vote for Pence:

I do wish that folks like Portman would be intellectually honest.  Unless the GOP electors are pledged for Mike Pence for President, there is no way folks can "vote for Mike Pence".  Portman knows this, and, to my knowledge, there is no slate of electors in Ohio on the ballot for Pence.

If Portman had any stones, he'd actively call for Trump to withdraw.  Note that he didn't do it.  Of course, he's got Ted Strickland breathing down his neck, so . . .

[Fuzzy Bear]

i guess priebus made clear that everyone who stands against the party would have pay a price....and working against the trumpers and the establishment at the same time is not working, if your party is in the trash anyway.

Priebus cannot make any important politician pay any price. He is a low-ranked bureaucrat, infinitely less important within the party than pretty much any Senator and many of the Congressmen.

Priebus has some power of the purse when it comes to campaign monies going to Republican Senate candidates, although that money pales in comparison to SuperPac money these days.

Priebus, if he were a strong RNC chairman, could, ostensibly, work to sponsor primaries in districts and states of disloyal Republicans.  This is unlikely not so much due to Priebus's position as the fact that he's been there a long time, and is likely to be replaced as RNC chairman after the election as a matter of course. 

Over the years, bad things happen to politicians who don't support the nominee of their party's Presidential ticket.  Even in the case of Southern Democrats (when they were dominant) who didn't support their national ticket, there were sanctions.  (Rep. Albert Waston (D-SC) and John Bell Williams (D-MS) endorsed Goldwater; they were both immediately stripped of their seniority.)  Even in the case of Trump, it will not be a good thing, in the long run, for these GOP pols to blatantly not support Trump, even if only to say that they will vote for him at the polls while not campaigning for him.

[Fuzzy Bear]

I won't add Powell to the list.  He's not really a Republican.  He's a true RINO; Clinton 2016 is the third straight Presidential election in which Powell has conspicuously endorsed the Democratic candidate.  At this point, Joe Lieberman is more of a Democrat than Colin Powell is a Republican.

[Fuzzy Bear]

I won't add Powell to the list.  He's not really a Republican.  He's a true RINO; Clinton 2016 is the third straight Presidential election in which Powell has conspicuously endorsed the Democratic candidate.  At this point, Joe Lieberman is more of a Democrat than Colin Powell is a Republican.

i agree that he seems to be quite liberal in some ways but otherwise your comparison doesn't hold water, imho.

1) two of his 3 endorsements have been for the SAME candidate.

2) trump is THE essential anti-republican and resulted into far more un-endorsements/crossover-voters than any other candidate since decades.

Trump described himself as a "Rockefeller Republican" when he stated in the mid-1990s that he was a Republican.  Endorsing the Democratic candidate 3 years in a row pretty much suggests that you're a not a Republican at heart.

The non-endorsements and unendorsements of Trump should put him down by 15 points, but we're nowhere near that level.  Indeed, while Trump is unlikely to win the popular vote, his chances of winning the EV with fewer popular votes than Clinton is fairly decent.  Trump may well lose by 15, but no poll shows that, and some polls show him even with Clinton.  That's something McGovern, Mondale, and Goldwater could never say.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Historically, when a significant faction of one party is completely unwilling to support the nominee, they support the other party's nominee or a third party.

See: Liberal Republicans (1872); Silver Republicans and Gold Democrats (1896); Democrats for Nixon (1972)

That's not really been true in recent years.  And there's a difference between "prominent" members of a party supporting the opposition and current elective and appointive officials bolting the party, even to merely state that they're not voting for their party's national ticket.

If you look at the list of "Democrats for Nixon", the vast majority of them were former elected or appointive officials whose prospects as future Democratic officeholders was nearly nil.  There were a few elective Democrats that did not endorse the McGovern-Shriver ticket, and some who, clearly, were going to vote for Nixon, but few expressly said this.  Those that did were mostly conservative Southerners that were not seeking re-election.  The most prominent active elected Democrats that actively endorsed Nixon were Mayor Sam Yorty (D-Los Angeles) and Mayor Frank Rizzo (D-Philadelphia); both would later become Republicans.  Most of the "Democrats for Nixon" were FORMER elected officials and former LBJ appointees.

There were some Republicans that didn't endorse Goldwater in 1964.  George Romney, William Scranton, Jacob Javits, and Nelson Rockefeller come to mind.  They weren't run out on a rail right away, but they were all pre-empted by Nixon (who DID campaign for Goldwater) in 1968.  Most of the Democrats that endorsed Goldwater were Southerners, many of whom would ultimately switch parties.

I guarantee that SOMETHING will happen to EVERY major elected Republican that doesn't back Trump.  It may be a primary.  It may be stripping them of cushy committee assignments in the Congress.  But these guys will pay a price, and none of the #NeverTrumpers will ever be on a GOP national ticket.  Period.  There's a reason Rand Paul isn't a #NeverTrumper; he's learned from history.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Historically, when a significant faction of one party is completely unwilling to support the nominee, they support the other party's nominee or a third party.

See: Liberal Republicans (1872); Silver Republicans and Gold Democrats (1896); Democrats for Nixon (1972)

That's not really been true in recent years.  And there's a difference between "prominent" members of a party supporting the opposition and current elective and appointive officials bolting the party, even to merely state that they're not voting for their party's national ticket.

If you look at the list of "Democrats for Nixon", the vast majority of them were former elected or appointive officials whose prospects as future Democratic officeholders was nearly nil.  There were a few elective Democrats that did not endorse the McGovern-Shriver ticket, and some who, clearly, were going to vote for Nixon, but few expressly said this.  Those that did were mostly conservative Southerners that were not seeking re-election.  The most prominent active elected Democrats that actively endorsed Nixon were Mayor Sam Yorty (D-Los Angeles) and Mayor Frank Rizzo (D-Philadelphia); both would later become Republicans.  Most of the "Democrats for Nixon" were FORMER elected officials and former LBJ appointees.

There were some Republicans that didn't endorse Goldwater in 1964.  George Romney, William Scranton, Jacob Javits, and Nelson Rockefeller come to mind.  They weren't run out on a rail right away, but they were all pre-empted by Nixon (who DID campaign for Goldwater) in 1968.  Most of the Democrats that endorsed Goldwater were Southerners, many of whom would ultimately switch parties.

I guarantee that SOMETHING will happen to EVERY major elected Republican that doesn't back Trump.  It may be a primary.  It may be stripping them of cushy committee assignments in the Congress.  But these guys will pay a price, and none of the #NeverTrumpers will ever be on a GOP national ticket.  Period.  There's a reason Rand Paul isn't a #NeverTrumper; he's learned from history.

The big question for the GOP after Tuesday will be who pays the price - those who opposed Trump or those who didn't. I don't think it's safe to assume it's the #NeverTrump folks who will be getting the boot. Needless to say it will be very ugly. Reince Priebus will hand in his resignation if he knows what's good for him.

The #NeverTrump folks will get the blame for downballot losses.  Some of the folks I see as being toast are Kasich, Flake, Collins, Kirk, Toomey, and a few others. 

Those who backed Trump will be viewed as folks who did what they had to do in service to the GOP.  Much like the Democrats who sucked it up and didn't trash Mondale or McGovern. 

After McGovern's loss, House Democrats became more unified.  After the 1974 elections (a MASSIVE Congressional landslide for the Democrats), the Class of 1974 ended the Seniority system by dumping three (3) key conservative Democratic committee chairmen.  I guarantee you that should the #NeverTrumpers up for election this year make it back, they will be denied the choice committee assignments they want. 

Parties do this for a basic reason; they are composed of egomaniacs who see a President when they look in the mirror and they don't want their party to dump them if they're the nominee.  This is how party loyalty is compelled, at least at the Congressional level.  No #NeverTrump Republican will ever sniff the odor of a place on the GOP national ticket.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Historically, when a significant faction of one party is completely unwilling to support the nominee, they support the other party's nominee or a third party.

See: Liberal Republicans (1872); Silver Republicans and Gold Democrats (1896); Democrats for Nixon (1972)

That's not really been true in recent years.  And there's a difference between "prominent" members of a party supporting the opposition and current elective and appointive officials bolting the party, even to merely state that they're not voting for their party's national ticket.

If you look at the list of "Democrats for Nixon", the vast majority of them were former elected or appointive officials whose prospects as future Democratic officeholders was nearly nil.  There were a few elective Democrats that did not endorse the McGovern-Shriver ticket, and some who, clearly, were going to vote for Nixon, but few expressly said this.  Those that did were mostly conservative Southerners that were not seeking re-election.  The most prominent active elected Democrats that actively endorsed Nixon were Mayor Sam Yorty (D-Los Angeles) and Mayor Frank Rizzo (D-Philadelphia); both would later become Republicans.  Most of the "Democrats for Nixon" were FORMER elected officials and former LBJ appointees.

There were some Republicans that didn't endorse Goldwater in 1964.  George Romney, William Scranton, Jacob Javits, and Nelson Rockefeller come to mind.  They weren't run out on a rail right away, but they were all pre-empted by Nixon (who DID campaign for Goldwater) in 1968.  Most of the Democrats that endorsed Goldwater were Southerners, many of whom would ultimately switch parties.

I guarantee that SOMETHING will happen to EVERY major elected Republican that doesn't back Trump.  It may be a primary.  It may be stripping them of cushy committee assignments in the Congress.  But these guys will pay a price, and none of the #NeverTrumpers will ever be on a GOP national ticket.  Period.  There's a reason Rand Paul isn't a #NeverTrumper; he's learned from history.

The big question for the GOP after Tuesday will be who pays the price - those who opposed Trump or those who didn't. I don't think it's safe to assume it's the #NeverTrump folks who will be getting the boot. Needless to say it will be very ugly. Reince Priebus will hand in his resignation if he knows what's good for him.

The #NeverTrump folks will get the blame for downballot losses.  Some of the folks I see as being toast are Kasich, Flake, Collins, Kirk, Toomey, and a few others. 

Those who backed Trump will be viewed as folks who did what they had to do in service to the GOP.  Much like the Democrats who sucked it up and didn't trash Mondale or McGovern. 

After McGovern's loss, House Democrats became more unified.  After the 1974 elections (a MASSIVE Congressional landslide for the Democrats), the Class of 1974 ended the Seniority system by dumping three (3) key conservative Democratic committee chairmen.  I guarantee you that should the #NeverTrumpers up for election this year make it back, they will be denied the choice committee assignments they want. 

Parties do this for a basic reason; they are composed of egomaniacs who see a President when they look in the mirror and they don't want their party to dump them if they're the nominee.  This is how party loyalty is compelled, at least at the Congressional level.  No #NeverTrump Republican will ever sniff the odor of a place on the GOP national ticket.

If you think Trump is comparable to Mondale or McGovern, your party is going to stay stuck in this ditch, keep nominating psychopaths and keep losing at the national level. Good luck with that.

Trump is comparable to Mondale and McGovern in the sense that many elected figures of their party are not endorsing him and avoiding him.  Trump is NOT comparable to those men because they were dead in the water at this point in the campaign, whereas Trump's only a point or two behind, and he has a real chance to win (although he's the clear underdog; I'm not in denial of that). 

Even if Trump loses, he's likely to lose by a lesser margin than Romney or McCain.  That he's this close with so much of his party off the reservation is what really puts him apart from McGovern, Mondale, and even Goldwater.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Incidentally, I think Heller and Toomey are the only remaining Senators who have not yet publicly stated if they'll vote for Trump or not.  Heller did say he was "99% sure" he wasn't voting Trump, but I guess that's not quite 100.  Toomey OTOH really doesn't want to talk about it.

So those two are at least possible no's, and then you have 12 sitting Republican Senators who say they're not voting for Trump.  The remaining GOP Senators are all backing Trump.

Publicly declared Never Trump renegades that remain in office after Nov-8 will be primaried for their treachery.

Nobody cares about your opinion, Putinist!

What an odd comment on an open discussion forum.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Incidentally, I think Heller and Toomey are the only remaining Senators who have not yet publicly stated if they'll vote for Trump or not.  Heller did say he was "99% sure" he wasn't voting Trump, but I guess that's not quite 100.  Toomey OTOH really doesn't want to talk about it.

So those two are at least possible no's, and then you have 12 sitting Republican Senators who say they're not voting for Trump.  The remaining GOP Senators are all backing Trump.

Publicly declared Never Trump renegades that remain in office after Nov-8 will be primaried for their treachery.

Nobody cares about your opinion, Putinist!

What an odd comment on an open discussion forum.

Even an open discussion forum should not allow Putinists to spew their hatred

You're the one spewing hatred, quite frankly.  But there's a double standard around here, so I'm used to some folks getting to have it both ways.  Welcome to the site!

[Fuzzy Bear]

Rep. Chris Stewart (UT), while not explicitly committing to #NeverTrump, nonetheless compared Trump to Mussolini earlier this week, so I'm guessing he's not a fan:

http://www.buzzfeed.com/natemcdermott/utah-republican-on-trump-hes-our-mussolini#.swVKnv0XP

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I find it quite amusing that someone who compares Trump to Mussolini thinks not voting for him in the general may be a bridge too far.

Partisanship is a hell of a drug.

This should have been the tipoff of how things would go in the end.

[Fuzzy Bear]

He'll take plenty of us with him. The Trump Revolution was dead before it started.

Hahahaha
I still remember when just about the only people who believed Trump could win were Ann Coulter, Pat Buchanan, Steve Bannon, and myself. Oh, and a couple thousand kids with Pepe the frog avatars.

#NeverTrump was hypocritical from the start. These same people who claimed Trump violated their conservative principles had no problem supporting McCain (the guy who has now killed the Obamacare repeal and repeatedly tried to pass amnesty) or Bush (who added trillions to the debt, which funnily enough only became a problem to them when Obama did it). When Rubio betrayed his voters by going the gang of eight after promising never to support amnesty, did they attack him for betraying conservative principles? Of course not. He was praised as "electable and moderate" vs Trump being called a leftist for any criticism he made of global neoliberal capitalism, even as they helped him win over moderate working class white voters in key swing states.

Krazen please stop

#NeverTrump was/is a PERSONAL and not an IDEOLOGICAL movement.  I would think that most of the #NeverTrump crowd are reasonably happy with Trump's agenda to date.  What they hate is their own decreased influence after Trump essentially executed a Hostile Takeover of the GOP.  It's personal; political, but not ideological.

[Fuzzy Bear]

He'll take plenty of us with him. The Trump Revolution was dead before it started.

Hahahaha
I still remember when just about the only people who believed Trump could win were Ann Coulter, Pat Buchanan, Steve Bannon, and myself. Oh, and a couple thousand kids with Pepe the frog avatars.

#NeverTrump was hypocritical from the start. These same people who claimed Trump violated their conservative principles had no problem supporting McCain (the guy who has now killed the Obamacare repeal and repeatedly tried to pass amnesty) or Bush (who added trillions to the debt, which funnily enough only became a problem to them when Obama did it). When Rubio betrayed his voters by going the gang of eight after promising never to support amnesty, did they attack him for betraying conservative principles? Of course not. He was praised as "electable and moderate" vs Trump being called a leftist for any criticism he made of global neoliberal capitalism, even as they helped him win over moderate working class white voters in key swing states.

Krazen please stop

#NeverTrump was/is a PERSONAL and not an IDEOLOGICAL movement.  I would think that most of the #NeverTrump crowd are reasonably happy with Trump's agenda to date.  What they hate is their own decreased influence after Trump essentially executed a Hostile Takeover of the GOP.  It's personal; political, but not ideological.

I agree. The party elites hated that Trump was winning without kissing their rings. He was ignoring or destroying every well funded think tank and media outlet in his way and revealing that 98% of people don't care what National Review says. The institutions that got behind #NeverTrump were doing so to preserve their own power.

It seemed like they failed, but until a lot of republican in Congress lose their primaries, they can still largely direct Trump's legislative agenda into their preferred territory of tax cuts and deregulation. The "hostile takeover" of the GOP will require more than one election cycle. If it fails to materialize, the GOP is set to be stuck permanently as the minority party with a message of "We'll make the democrats transform society a little more slowly and let our donors keep their tax loopholes."

The GOP has gotten much of what they wanted out of Trump in terms of legislation and appointments.  Trump will never win all of his enemies over, but the legislative successes have brought some pressure on #NeverTrump types to dial their act back.

[Fuzzy Bear]

He'll take plenty of us with him. The Trump Revolution was dead before it started.

Hahahaha
I still remember when just about the only people who believed Trump could win were Ann Coulter, Pat Buchanan, Steve Bannon, and myself. Oh, and a couple thousand kids with Pepe the frog avatars.

#NeverTrump was hypocritical from the start. These same people who claimed Trump violated their conservative principles had no problem supporting McCain (the guy who has now killed the Obamacare repeal and repeatedly tried to pass amnesty) or Bush (who added trillions to the debt, which funnily enough only became a problem to them when Obama did it). When Rubio betrayed his voters by going the gang of eight after promising never to support amnesty, did they attack him for betraying conservative principles? Of course not. He was praised as "electable and moderate" vs Trump being called a leftist for any criticism he made of global neoliberal capitalism, even as they helped him win over moderate working class white voters in key swing states.

Krazen please stop

#NeverTrump was/is a PERSONAL and not an IDEOLOGICAL movement.  I would think that most of the #NeverTrump crowd are reasonably happy with Trump's agenda to date.  What they hate is their own decreased influence after Trump essentially executed a Hostile Takeover of the GOP.  It's personal; political, but not ideological.

I agree. The party elites hated that Trump was winning without kissing their rings. He was ignoring or destroying every well funded think tank and media outlet in his way and revealing that 98% of people don't care what National Review says. The institutions that got behind #NeverTrump were doing so to preserve their own power.

It seemed like they failed, but until a lot of republican in Congress lose their primaries, they can still largely direct Trump's legislative agenda into their preferred territory of tax cuts and deregulation. The "hostile takeover" of the GOP will require more than one election cycle. If it fails to materialize, the GOP is set to be stuck permanently as the minority party with a message of "We'll make the democrats transform society a little more slowly and let our donors keep their tax loopholes."

The GOP has gotten much of what they wanted out of Trump in terms of legislation and appointments.  Trump will never win all of his enemies over, but the legislative successes have brought some pressure on #NeverTrump types to dial their act back.

Except they haven't cut the spending which just means that people like me are going to have to pay for the budget deficits that you guys created?

Like you gotta pay for these tax cuts....

The GOP wants tax cuts.  As long as they can sell the idea that "growth" will pay for the tax cuts, they'll keep doing what they're doing.

I didn't want the tax cuts.  And I don't expect the sort of "entitlement cuts" to be forthcoming.  The gap between the wealthiest and those struggling to remain in the middle class is so big now that this isn't feasible.