The list grows: Republicans against Trump

Post Reply New Topic

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_R ... aign,_2016

Surely this is unprecedented.

At this point the greatest headache for Trump wrt. defecting Republican may not be the public reaction... but that he now lacks the infrastructure to effectively campaign in crucial swing states.

With so many GOP officials abandoning him, how is Trump going to mount an effective campaign in Arizona, Iowa, Ohio, North Carolina, Florida, Nevada and Pennsylvania?

... because he needs to win *all* of these to win the election, and they are all currently swinging towards Clinton...

Furthermore, Mitt Romney - who really, really, really doesn't like Trump - could perhaps deprive Trump of Utah if he openly endorses McMullin. Romney was immensely popular in Utah in the 2012 presidential election, winning with the largest margin since 1980... And Mormons generally loathe Trump...

You're right. If Trump loses, it is Bush's fault.

It's hard to blame anyone other than Trump and his campaign. If they'd done a better job then maybe the Bushes would have endorsed them.

Trump is going to make many Republicans lose their seats in Congress

(Congress can be the House of Representatives alone, or the House combined with the Senate--though the Senate alone is rarely referred to as "Congress.")

This isn't true.

Iowa and particularly Arizona are well within reach.

If Trump wins those, plus Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida, he can afford to lose North Carolina and Nevada and even Utah (he still wins if he keeps Utah but doesn't regain Iowa).

That is a very big "if" though. Right now he's more likely to lose Texas than win Pennsylvania. Trump can win without Pennsylvania, but it requires winning even safer states, like Colorado, Michigan, and New Hampshire. It's more likely than Clinton will win states like Kansas, Montana, and South Dakota.

Curious, considering the shared polygamy (although that doesn't translate into rape like it seems it does with him...)

ps. I think more fascists/dictators around the world endorse him than individuals in the party he's supposed to be running for... which I think indicates how these thugs band together.

Apparently his almost total lack of newspaper endorsements is unprecedented as well, according to Wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspaper ... tion,_2016

Gary Johnson has twice as many endorsements as Trump has, and it's almost unheard of for papers to endorse third party candidates. That's hilarious!

Retracted ages ago by the LDS Church, who wanted respectability after the skirmishes between them and the United States. It's hard to get that when one of your foundational beliefs is breaking the law, so it was changed. Now only isolationist FLDS branches remain polygamous.

But, the only precedent for this is Goldwater's run in 1964. And even then, the list of maor Republicans who refused to endorse then was smaller than the ones refusing to back Trump today. It's more like the Bourbon Democrats who backed McKinley over Bryan in 1896, and the Democrats remained the minority party until the Great Depression proved Bryan right about a lot of things.

Here the issue is "I'm deathly afraid of brown people" though, not "the gold standard is too restrictive and we need some serious reform on Wall Street" which are issues that wouldn't go away. If nativism continues to take hold in the Republican Party, they'll either need vast deportations that won't happen, or they'll be a fractured party by 2024. A party based around nativism can't survive in a country where Texas is a swing state due to immigration.

What about the ones who withdrew their support, or never supported him at all?

Last edited by Tim_Tex on 22 Oct 2016, 1:34 am, edited 1 time in total.

Tell me more about McMullin.

He's running as a Ted Cruz-style movement conservative.

He has a background as a CIA operations officer, Goldman Sachs investment banker, and Chief Policy Director for the House Republican Conference. Basically, he's a leading Republican bureaucrat who is ridiculously credentialed, but it's all jobs that are out of the limelight. He's very likely to run for Governor of Utah or the Senate there after this.

His supporters really seem to want a dictator, since he'd need to bulldoze over both parties' opposition to propose anything.

Yeah, I find Trump's lack of newspaper endorsements funny too, but probably for a different reason than you. I find it funny because it shows up the supposed leftist media v rightist media division for the fraud that it is.

It shows in that chart who the papers had supported in previous election cycles, and many of those papers supported Mitt Romney last time around. There is not an unprecedented lack of support for Republican candidates by newspapers, the lack of endorsements is notably specific to Trump.

Er, yes, so? That's exactly the point I'm making. When (as is usually the case) the Republican and Democrat candidates are two barely distinguishable open-borders and foreign intervention supporting globalists, the media splits into two camps and engages in mock battles. But when a candidate emerges who genuinely offers something different the monolithic nature of the media/political/financial establishment reveals itself. Thanks to Trump millions of Americans are now becoming aware of this, although apparently not the ones on this forum.