• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Gawker: Republican With Backing Enters Presidential Race to Challenge Trump

Status
Not open for further replies.

benjipwns

Banned
Why doesn't he just support this guy instead?
Because this guy is merely someone who will probably be another body to throw on the scrap heap of Unity08/AmericansElect/BetterForAmerica?

Hi, ignorant non-American. When people say this could "help the down ticket", um, what does that mean in practice?
You're a Republican, but you don't like Trump. But this guy you do like (for whatever reason) then rather than saying fuck it and staying home, you go out and vote.

And then you also vote Republican for all the other offices. If you stayed home because you hate Trump, those are votes those candidates wouldn't have gotten.
 

OnPoint

Member
Hi, ignorant non-American. When people say this could "help the down ticket", um, what does that mean in practice?
I believe it's in reference to the senate and house seats that are also up for vote. The presidential selection is on the top of the ticket, so all the rest are under it, or "down ticket".

Truth be told, that's just me logically guessing? I don't actually know. But it makes sense to me haha
 
I just read that Jeb Bush's son, George P. Bush, is backing Trump???

Talk about shitting on your own mom and dad...

sheesh...

Why doesn't he just support this guy instead?

The GoP is completely screwed up.

yup, it is screwed up especially since his mom was born in Mexico.

it looks like he hates Democrats more
 

Iksenpets

Banned
Hi, ignorant non-American. When people say this could "help the down ticket", um, what does that mean in practice?

Candidates for lower offices. Congressmen, Senators, Governors, state legislatures, etc. A lot of people just check the box to vote straight ticket, all Democrats, all Republicans, rather than picking individual candidates for each office, so there's fear that if Republicans are bleeding too many votes to Hillary or too many of their people are just staying home because they can't support Trump but don't want to vote Hillary, Democrats could see massive gains in those offices. Putting this guy forward gives someone for those voters to turn out to vote for, and to maybe pull some people away from voting straight Democrat. Or it could backfire just lead to Hillary leading even more clearly than before, thus depressing turnout even further.
 
Because this guy is merely someone who will probably be another body to throw on the scrap heap of Unity08/AmericansElect/BetterForAmerica?


You're a Republican, but you don't like Trump. But this guy you do like (for whatever reason) then rather than saying fuck it and staying home, you go out and vote.

And then you also vote Republican for all the other offices. If you stayed home because you hate Trump, those are votes those candidates wouldn't have gotten.

Ah and he'd technically be running as an independent for president, but only in some states because of deadlines? So you get people out to vote for him, and thus the lower office republicans?

---

Second edit: Aha thanks all for those descriptions.
 
Hi, ignorant non-American. When people say this could "help the down ticket", um, what does that mean in practice?

On top of the presidential elections, the legislative branch elections also take place in November 2016 this year.

Google says:
"A total of 469 seats in the U.S. Congress (34 Senate seats and all 435 House seats)" are up for grabs.

If you hypothesize that a fair number of Republican voters are so disgusted by Trump that they flat out won't vote (because voting for a Democrat is not really a realistic option for policy or personal reasons), it could hurt the election chances of senators and congressman further down the same ballot, as they won't get votes either from absentees.

Throwing a warm body up there who safely represents party ideals and who gives protest voters a reason to show up, saves Republican control of the House and Senate.
 
How does this help them? All this does is help Hilary? *confused*

It's all damage control. Down-ticket candidates can say they're Republican, they just don't support Trump. If you're running for Senate or House in certain areas, tying yourself to Trump is suicide.
 

heidern

Junior Member
It's all damage control. Down-ticket candidates can say they're Republican, they just don't support Trump. If you're running for Senate or House in certain areas, tying yourself to Trump is suicide.

It's a good thing Trump is a really nice guy who'd never think of getting revenge by running as an independent to sabotage them back in four years time.
 

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
None of that contradicts what I said. So what if Clinton wins Utah? All you need is 270, adding extras makes no difference. 2016 is about the House, and this could materially influence key House races in a negative way for the Democrats.

Only if he's available on the ballot in other places. Odds are he'll be on the ballot in Utah and nowhere else, if he can even manage that. No one was counting on House seats in Utah.
 
So the Republicans have written off their chances at the presidential office and are now focusing on controlling congress. Let's suppose that Trump is still the most popular choice amongst the right - will his supporters vote for a senator that is backing an alternative republican candidate for president? Is it possible that this will do more harm than good?
 

Zubz

Banned
Gah. I wanted to see the party destroyed by doubling-down, not conceding. Hopefully 'Ol Lex here gains no traction and the 500 MPH trainwreck that is the GOP right now isn't stopped; if anyone's going to remember to vote for Senate/House, it was the educated, never-Trump Republicans.
 
This is going to be such a blowout. It's so fucking satisfying to watch the GOP implode.

They'll be fine. They're too rich and powerful to truly disappear, sadly.

As long as they maintain control of Congress, they'll kill any progressive legislation that comes their way. This gives the uninformed populace the impression that the Democrats can't get anything done, and strengthens the GOP down the road.

It really is quite treasonous, the concept of sabotaging the president in order to weaken his/her political party at the expense of the American people.
 
How does Trump losing help the Republicans hold on to the Senate?

It doesn't.

So here's a sample ballot:

sample_ballot_1.jpg

Generally, in American politics, you vote party. If you're a Democrat, you vote for your Democractic nominee and then you just check off the rest of your state and local options that have a "D" next to their name. Same if you're Republican. That's a pretty uninformed vote, but it's what a lot of voters do.

Let's say you're a Pennsylvania Republican though. Your state is blue, but you still vote. Perhaps you dislike Trump so much that you don't vote. Given the situation above, this means you're not voting for any of those state and local options either. They're all on the same ticket - hence down-ticket - so not voting at all is bad for those GOP senators and representatives.

Providing a second Republican option gives those who won't vote for Trump and otherwise would not vote at all, a reason to go to the polls and hopefully still vote in down-ticket Republicans.
 

Some Nobody

Junior Member
Gary Johnson doesn't support the war on Muslims or drugs.

He wants to gut our military more than Obama (who's gutted it completely to the bone) already has.

Is this true? I feel like it's not true. No doubt the military isn't getting the funding it did in 2004-2006 but..."gutted to the bone" would imply that other countries are actually on par with us military wise and...ahahahaha.

this is actually bad for the Democrats, not good. Clinton was almost certainly going to beat Trump anyway, but she was going to beat him because a fair number of the white educated Republican demographic were going to be demoralized and not turn up to vote for Trump (but also not vote for Clinton, because at heart they are Republican). Now, she beats Trump more easily, but that Republican demographic that wasn't turning out will turn out to vote for this guy if he does well, which means they're now voting in the local races when they weren't if he hadn't chosen to run, which means Democrats do worse in the Senate and the House. It also marks the beginning of the Republican reconstruction period if he begins to surge as a candidate, which is obviously long-run bad for Democratic prospects too.

The best situation for Clinton was always her vs. Trump, mano a (wo)mano.

Yup.

The surprise to me here is that Trump has yet to say anything that utterly caused him to disintegrate. Like, Mitt Romney had that thing that leaked where he spoke at a dinner and I feel like that tanked the guy at least a little. But Trump's said (and done!) so much more and he's still plugging along.
 
No, not really.

I certainly feel that sabotaging your country's leader for your own political gain is treasonous.

I'm not talking about what the GOP is doing to Trump, but what they've done to Obama since they gained the majority. Obama was effectively neutered since 2010, all because of nonsensical Republican filibustering engineered to make the country lose faith in him.

They'd drive this country into the ground before they'd see their wealth and power deteriorate for the gains of the 99%.
 
Is this true? I feel like it's not true. No doubt the military isn't getting the funding it did in 2004-2006 but..."gutted to the bone" would imply that other countries are actually on par with us military wise and...ahahahaha.

As someone who lives in Northern VA and loses count of all the defense contractors with offices in this area and in DC, I'm going to have to agree that it doesn't really feel like defense spending has really been cut outside of the sequestration nonsense which was largely reversed in years since, I thought.
 

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
It doesn't.

So here's a sample ballot:



Generally, in American politics, you vote party. If you're a Democrat, you vote for your Democractic nominee and then you just check off the rest of your state and local options that have a "D" next to their name. Same if you're Republican. That's a pretty uninformed vote, but it's what a lot of voters do.

Let's say you're a Pennsylvania Republican though. Your state is blue, but you still vote. Perhaps you dislike Trump so much that you don't vote. Given the situation above, this means you're not voting for any of those state and local options either. They're all on the same ticket - hence down-ticket - so not voting at all is bad for those GOP senators and representatives.

Providing a second Republican option gives those who won't vote for Trump and otherwise would not vote at all, a reason to go to the polls and hopefully still vote in down-ticket Republicans.

This of course only matters if he can get on the ballot across the country, and considering many deadlines have come and gone that's not too likely.
 

benjipwns

Banned
I certainly feel that sabotaging your country's leader for your own political gain is treasonous.

I'm not talking about what the GOP is doing to Trump, but what they've done to Obama since they gained the majority. Obama was effectively neutered since 2010, all because of nonsensical Republican filibustering engineered to make the country lose faith in him.
Congress opposing the President when they disagree is not levying war against the United States, or giving aid and comfort to its enemies. It's operating as designed.
 

tuxfool

Banned
Congress opposing the President when they disagree is not levying war against the United States, or giving aid and comfort to its enemies. It's operating as designed.

when they reject proposals from the executive that they previously supported (or even proposed) it starts to look like pure obstructionism, not disagreement.
 
They'll be fine. They're too rich and powerful to truly disappear, sadly.

As long as they maintain control of Congress, they'll kill any progressive legislation that comes their way. This gives the uninformed populace the impression that the Democrats can't get anything done, and strengthens the GOP down the road.

It really is quite treasonous, the concept of sabotaging the president in order to weaken his/her political party at the expense of the American people.

No, the legislative branch was designed to keep the president from doing whatever he wants, and the supreme court was designed such that even when they are in lockstep, they cannot instill law that fundamentally infringes on the rights originally granted to us in the constitution.

The problem is that too few Americans care enough about the political process to make voting on the legislative branch a priority, that the legislative branch is largely concerned more with keeping their jobs than actually governing, and that the legislative branch is given control over its own voting population (gerrymandering).
 

Angry Grimace

Two cannibals are eating a clown. One turns to the other and says "does something taste funny to you?"
I don't get why this is even a thing people are taking seriously. He's not going to make the ballot in any states, he's definitely not making the ballot in any states listed as "Republican" and he's not going to get the backing of the GOP-proper (who aren't going to throw support to a guy who didn't win a single primary vote) and he's not going to get the kind of money the article alludes to.

It's a publicity stunt to try and distance the party from Trump in the aftermath.
 

benjipwns

Banned
My Fellow Americans,

Our American Nation is the greatest experiment in freedom the world has ever known. It’s given generations of citizens the blessings of liberty ever since the Founding Fathers risked their lives in what seemed like an improbable bid for independence. While the republic they created was one of imperfect freedoms, for 240 years the arc of progress and liberty has moved ever-upward. Even in times of economic crisis and war, our nation has been a singular source of hope for people throughout the world yearning for liberty, dignity and opportunity.

I proudly and quietly served our country for most of my adult life, first as an undercover operations officer with the Central Intelligence Agency and more recently as a senior national security and policy advisor in the House of Representatives. My service has given me unique, firsthand knowledge of the threats our nation faces, the burdens borne by hardworking Americans, and the numerous areas of our government that desperately need reform.

Like millions of Americans, I had hoped this year would bring us better nominees who, despite party differences, could offer compelling visions of a better future. Instead, we have been left with two candidates who are fundamentally unfit for the profound responsibilities they seek.

Hillary Clinton is a corrupt career politician who has recklessly handled classified information in an attempt to avoid accountability and put American lives at risk including those of my former colleagues. She fails the basic tests of judgment and ethics any candidate for President must meet. Moreover, she only offers stale economic ideas like the same old top-down government control that has brought us eight years of historically low growth.

Donald Trump appeals to the worst fears of Americans at a time we need unity, not division. Republicans are deeply divided by a man who is perilously close to gaining the most powerful position in the world, and many rightly see him as a real threat to our Republic. Given his obvious personal instability, putting him in command of our military and nuclear arsenal would be deeply irresponsible. His infatuation with strongmen and demagogues like Vladimir Putin is anathema to America values. We cannot and must not elect him.

Millions of Americans are not being represented by either of these candidates; those of us who care about the strength of the military and intelligence services find little to embrace in either Trump or Clinton.

Americans who believe in limited, Constitutional government that is smaller, smarter, and more accountable view both Clinton and Trump as symbols of corruption and excess that provide no hope of basic competence in the federal government.

Those who embrace the dignity and value of every human life from conception until death; who understand the crushing danger of our unsustainable national debt; who believe deference to our Constitution outweighs partisan political priorities are all looking for something better than the two major party candidates are offering. These foundational and time-tested principles transcend party and politics but sadly have no champion in this election. We must not abandon the fight for these values, for doing so will deprive future generations of Americans the bright future we want to give them.

With the stakes so high for our nation and at this late stage in the process, I can no longer stand on the sidelines. Our country needs leaders who are in it for the right reasons and who actually understand what makes this country the greatest on earth. Leaders who will unite us and guide us to a prosperous, secure future, beyond the dysfunction of a broken political system.

Just as the American Revolution required men and women devoted to liberty and freedom to stand up and be counted, this moment calls a new generation to the same sacred task. With that in mind, I have decided to pursue the cause of American renewal and the Presidency of the United States of America.

With Hope For Our Future,

Evan McMullin

Evan McMullin is an independent candidate for President.
website is expanding quickly: https://www.evanmcmullin.com/issues

he supports a strong america that creates good jobs and has a smartly run government and has no abortion on demand and replacing the failed obamacare with quality modern health care
 

Theonik

Member
How does this help them? All this does is help Hilary? *confused*
They know they can't win with Trump and don't want Trump to win anyway. They also don't want people to flock from the sinking Trump ship over to Clinton so they are putting an alternative for conservative voters that isn't Clinton and isn't Trump in an effort to disrupt both.
 
If the people pushing this guy are genuinely trying to win the presidency then they might be underestimating just how many of their voters are Trump supporters. Also like many of the replace Trump attempts this might be a bit too late, granted I don't really know when a better time to do this would have been, considering that Trump was only nominated like 3 weeks ago but still.

Anyway I think the best possibly outcome will be that this guy siphons GOP votes away from Gary Johnson and sends him back to 5% and removes the possibility of him as a third party candidate. Then hopefully the people on the left supporting Johnson will ditch him and reconsider voting for Hillary.
 
This is probably a weird remark to make but I find it interesting that his bio specifies what his father had for a profession but doesn't for his mother. Even if she was just a housewife it's odd to me.

For a Utah Mormon family of my mom and dad's generation... yes, very likely she was a homemaker.
 

Rentahamster

Rodent Whores
This is too late in the game to be useful. Whoever those "Republican donors" are that are referenced in the article, they're wasting their money and should donate it to charity instead.
 

Griss

Member
So they pick a Goldman Sachs guy who is pro-globalisation, pro-immigration, pro 'entrepreneurs and innovation' and with nothing to say about inequality or poverty to go against Trump?

Have these people been paying the slightest lick of attention?
 
So they pick a Goldman Sachs guy who is pro-globalisation, pro-immigration, pro 'entrepreneurs and innovation' and with nothing to say about inequality or poverty to go against Trump?

Have these people been paying the slightest lick of attention?

Nope, but the Rubio/Cruz voters they're hoping to siphon don't care about inequality or poverty first and foremost. They care about restoring fantasy 50s America.

Trump's constituency, in contrast, is made up of the uneducated, working class whites who used to be Democrats before the Southern Strategy convinced them that black people, not the rich, were responsible for their problems. They're the ones who have wizened up enough to realize that the 1% are screwing them, but are still too racist to unite with democrats to fight them.

The Democratic party's core goal going forward has to be this: Making Trump's constituency realize that they have way more in common with working class blacks and Latinos than they do with rich kids like Romney, and proving to them that the Democratic party is actually working in their best interest.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom