#NeverTrump 2016= PUMA 2008?

[libertpaulian]

In late January, the National Review posted an editorial stating that Trump was the wrong candidate and people shouldn't vote for him.  Ted Cruz would go on to win Iowa, while Donald Trump would go on to win the other three early states.  After Donald Trump crushed it in Nevada, and Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz tag-teamed to make Donald Trump look bad in the pre-Super Tuesday debate, a hashtag called #NeverTrump went viral on Twitter and Facebook, and was used by many conservative superstars, primarily those who supported Marco Rubio.  The hashtag means they would never vote for Trump in a primary or a general election.  Some #NeverTrump people went even further and stated they wouldn't vote for any Congressional, Senatorial, Gubernatorial, or statewide candidate who endorsed and/or campaigned for Trump.  

However, is #NeverTrump REALLY that big and powerful?  Is it thriving as much as the Internet says it is?

I ask because I'd like to take you down Memory Lane...

In 2008, a group of disgruntled Hillary Clinton primary supporters started a movement called PUMA (Party Unity My Ass), stating they would not support Barack Obama in the general election because they felt he cheated Hillary out of the nomination and that even if he didn't, he was not qualified to be President.  When McCain won the nomination and picked Palin as his running mate, a good number of PUMAs said they would support McCain/Palin, especially given the fact that if they won, America would have its first female Vice President.  PUMA gained a lot of online steam, and even some right-wing pundits were trying to be Pollyannas about Obama's dominance in the polls, saying "Bradley Effect!  Oh, and don't forget the PUMA Effect either!"  Of course, we know how the story ends.  Obama/Biden went on to defeat McCain/Palin in an electoral landslide.  The only state where PUMAs may have made the difference was Missouri (which Obama lost by only 3,400 votes), but that's about it.  In the end, PUMA was nothing more than hype and hot air.

Will #NeverTrump make a difference this November, should Trump be the nominee?  Or will it just be an overinflated online presence, like PUMA was?  Share your thoughts below.

[IceSpear]

If Trump actually gets the nomination, it will diminish significantly as more and more Republicans gradually come home and realize that not supporting Trump is helping Hillary. However, I do think it will be slightly more successful than the PUMA movement, since it has (limited) institutional support from people who can't afford to back down (National Review, Sasse, some other elected officials, etc.)

[Mr. Morden]

I’m not convinced that the comparison really holds up.  In Clinton vs. Obama, both candidates were largely pretty popular among Democratic primary voters.  Neither was nearly as polarizing among voters within their own party as Trump.  And of course at the elite level, there was never any big concerted PUMA effort.  The PUMAs did not include a bunch of current and former elected officials within the party, nor prominent media figures and the like.  At that elite level, I don’t see many of these anti-Trump people backing down.  Some will, but many won’t.  It’s much easier to flip-flop on something like this if you’re an ordinary voter than if you’re a public figure.

In fact, at the elite level, I expect the number of defections to grow rather than shrink.  At present, a huge number of current Republican officials have simply dodged the question re: whether they’d endorse Trump if he’s the nominee.  I think nearly half the Senate GOP caucus is in that category.  Once he wins the nomination, it’ll no longer be a hypothetical.  Every Republican politician will be pressed to endorse or renounce Trump.  And not just endorse him once, but comment every week on whatever his latest outrageous comment was.  It’ll be a spectacle very unlike anything that happened with Obama in ’08.  In addition, with McConnell and Ryan giving their caucuses a pass to run in opposition to Trump, at least some of them will take them up on that.  And the media will eat it up, because “Can the nominee really unify the party?” is a standard post-primary media storyline, which in this case will persist for months and months.

Because that idea--that it’s OK for a conservative Republican to not vote for Trump because he’s a pretend conservative who’s hijacked the party--will be out there in the ether, being reinforced not just by “RINOs”, but by many true blue righties as well, it’ll percolate down to the level of regular voters as well.  Not all of them, of course.  But way more than is normal in a presidential election?  Yes.  Not sure if an actual #NeverTrump third party candidate will be able to get on the ballot anywhere, but there’ll be some push to write in a name among some folks.  Like #WriteInPaulRyan, or something.  Either that, or there’ll be some stealth campaign to stack the Republican electors with anti-Trump defectors, so that in the unlikely event that he does win, the race will actually be thrown to the House via faithless electors.

[Ronnie]

@Morden: I can't even fathom the disaster that would ensue if Trump loses because of faithless electors.  I think house Republicans would be under enormous pressure to confirm him anyway, lest there be political unrest in every corner of the country.

[Mr. Morden]

@Morden: I can't even fathom the disaster that would ensue if Trump loses because of faithless electors.  I think house Republicans would be under enormous pressure to confirm him anyway, lest there be political unrest in every corner of the country.

I agree, though I do think there's enough anti-Trump hysteria from some corners of the GOP elite that "solutions" like this will gain some traction.

Clinton will most likely beat him anyway, in which case it's moot.  But 10 or more faithless electors seems absolutely plausible to me.  Actually, it could easily go higher if Trump has lost to Clinton anyway.

[SillyAmerican]

Will #NeverTrump make a difference this November, should Trump be the nominee?  Or will it just be an overinflated online presence, like PUMA was?

The latter. When push comes to shove, many in the #NeverTrump camp will cave, in exactly the same way as the PUMA folks did in 2008. These types of movements may have an impact during a party's nomination process, but once that's complete and the focus shifts to the GE, they dissolve quite quickly. Yes, Trump is not the most popular of candidates, but when it comes down to Trump or Clinton (or Sanders, for that matter), #NeverTrump will become very squishy, turning into #NeverTrumpUnlessFacedWithThisAlternative.

[beaver2.0]

If Drumpf actually gets the nomination, it will diminish significantly as more and more Republicans gradually come home and realize that not supporting Drumpf is helping Hillary. However, I do think it will be slightly more successful than the PUMA movement, since it has (limited) institutional support from people who can't afford to back down (National Review, Sasse, some other elected officials, etc.)

[Iowa+3]

Prolifers won't vote for him if he's the nominee. Simple as that. We have zero qualms about walking out on Trump and letting him get nuked in the general.

[SillyAmerican]

Prolifers won't vote for him if he's the nominee. Simple as that. We have zero qualms about walking out on Trump and letting him get nuked in the general.

Yes, but by that thinking, prochoicers will fill in whatever number of prolifers choose to walk. And frankly, I really wonder how many single issue voters there are out there, because our problems are many, and the options for people to fix them are few...

[Krago]

Either that, or there’ll be some stealth campaign to stack the Republican electors with anti-Trump defectors, so that in the unlikely event that he does win, the race will actually be thrown to the House via faithless electors.

Who selects the individual members of the electoral college?  Do they have to be approved by the Presidential nominee?

[Virginiá]

Either that, or there’ll be some stealth campaign to stack the Republican electors with anti-Trump defectors, so that in the unlikely event that he does win, the race will actually be thrown to the House via faithless electors.

Who selects the individual members of the electoral college?  Do they have to be approved by the Presidential nominee?

http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/electors.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Ljube]

If Trump actually gets the nomination, it will diminish significantly as more and more Republicans gradually come home and realize that not supporting Trump is helping Hillary. However, I do think it will be slightly more successful than the PUMA movement, since it has (limited) institutional support from people who can't afford to back down (National Review, Sasse, some other elected officials, etc.)

Don't know what you're basing this on. Anti-anything movements dissipate to oblivion once their cause is defeated decisively.

#NeverTrump 2016 = PUMA 2008

[Roemerista]

I apparently live in a bubble. I do not know a single Trump supporter.  In fact, every activist I know is either planning not to vote or vote 3rd party.

Personally, I will be voting Clinton in November - my first vote for a Democrat. And as a pro-life voter and political hack who worked in Newt's DC during the 90s that is something I thought would never happen.

I am obviously biased, but I feel that it is different this time. PUMA was just sadness over a favored candidate losing. I'd say 2008 Clinton voters were more passionate about their candidate than 2016 Bush voters. NeverTrump I've found is a view that he is simply is not presidential.

[Ljube]

I apparently live in a bubble. I do not know a single Trump supporter.  In fact, every activist I know is either planning not to vote or vote 3rd party.

Personally, I will be voting Clinton in November - my first vote for a Democrat. And as a pro-life voter and political hack who worked in Newt's DC during the 90s that is something I thought would never happen.

I am obviously biased, but I feel that it is different this time. PUMA was just sadness over a favored candidate losing. I'd say 2008 Clinton voters were more passionate about their candidate than 2016 Bush voters. NeverTrump I've found is a view that he is simply is not presidential.

You don't vote for somebody as vile as Hillary Clinton just because your party's nominee is not presidential. That's just absurd.

PUMA was the same and it lasted longer, till well after the convention, but eventually it died out.

[Roemerista]

I apparently live in a bubble. I do not know a single Trump supporter.  In fact, every activist I know is either planning not to vote or vote 3rd party.

Personally, I will be voting Clinton in November - my first vote for a Democrat. And as a pro-life voter and political hack who worked in Newt's DC during the 90s that is something I thought would never happen.

I am obviously biased, but I feel that it is different this time. PUMA was just sadness over a favored candidate losing. I'd say 2008 Clinton voters were more passionate about their candidate than 2016 Bush voters. NeverTrump I've found is a view that he is simply is not presidential.

You don't vote for somebody as vile as Hillary Clinton just because your party's nominee is not presidential. That's just absurd.

PUMA was the same and it lasted longer, till well after the convention, but eventually it died out.

Not "presidential" was me being charitable in characterizing Mr. Trump.  It is simply a catch all for his deficiencies as a suitable candidate. He is not presidential not just in affect, but in substance.

[The Night Owlditor]

I apparently live in a bubble. I do not know a single Trump supporter.  In fact, every activist I know is either planning not to vote or vote 3rd party.

Personally, I will be voting Clinton in November - my first vote for a Democrat. And as a pro-life voter and political hack who worked in Newt's DC during the 90s that is something I thought would never happen.

I am obviously biased, but I feel that it is different this time. PUMA was just sadness over a favored candidate losing. I'd say 2008 Clinton voters were more passionate about their candidate than 2016 Bush voters. NeverTrump I've found is a view that he is simply is not presidential.

Welcome aboard