The Growing List of Top Republicans Abandoning Trump

[Delvo]

Entertaining, but irrelevant. Voters have never voted based on endorsements from off-ticket politicians.

 

[Meadmaker]

Entertaining, but irrelevant. Voters have never voted based on endorsements from off-ticket politicians.

True, but off-ticket politicians have frequently based their endorsements based on what they perceive are the intentions of voters.


Either an awful lot of high profile politicians are making a serious mistake, or Trump is toast. Those names that start with "Senator" or "Governor" are usually pretty good about figuring this sort of thing out.

 

[angrysoba]

The year isn't a complete loss for George Will. He's enjoying talking about the Cubs!

Awesome column. Thanks for that link.

Is it actually by him, or is it someone satirizing George Will's tedious, long-winded style?

 

[Denver]

I think Paul Ryan will abandon him before the election, if the polls show a big enough lead for Clinton.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Entertaining, but irrelevant. Voters have never voted based on endorsements from off-ticket politicians.

It's human nature to seek patterns. The last time this many Republicans refused to support the party nominee was one of the biggest landslides (for the other side) in Presidential Election history.

Donald's breaking all the records. Goldwater had at least a few newspapers supporting him. Trump has zero. His only support comes from on-line hate organs.

 

[Meadmaker]

Is it actually by him, or is it someone satirizing George Will's tedious, long-winded style?

We all have our preferences. I love George Will's tedious, long-winded style. It reminds me that some people in America are actually capable of intellectual discourse.


In other news, the number of GOP Senators who have unendorsed Trump has grown to 16.

 

[Delvo]

A more interesting Trump-rejection list would be a list of other countries' leaders who decide those countries can just go 4/8 years without their leaders personally meeting an American President.

 

[ddt]

The comment I saw was something like, sure, it was ok when it was Muslims, Mexicans and black people, but when you start insulting white women, you've gone too far!

Blessed are they who were standing up to him when it was "only" Muslims, Mexicans and black people.

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

 

[ddt]

A more interesting Trump-rejection list would be a list of other countries' leaders who decide those countries can just go 4/8 years without their leaders personally meeting an American President.

They surely won't say that aloud.

I just heard yesterday Dutch PM, Mark Rutte, get asked in a talk show about the prospect of Drumpf being elected. He answered: we have a long standing tradition not to comment on foreign elections.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Breaking on CNN
Paul Ryan said he won't defend Donald Trump
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/10/10/politics/paul-ryan-said-he-wont-defend-donald-trump/index.html

House Speaker Paul Ryan told fellow Republicans Monday he will no longer defend GOP nominee Donald Trump and will instead use the next 29 days to focus on preserving his party's hold on Congress

 

[phiwum]

We all have our preferences. I love George Will's tedious, long-winded style. It reminds me that some people in America are actually capable of intellectual discourse.

Hey, give our pal AngrySoba his due! He can be tedious and long-winded with the best of them. I'm sure he didn't mean it in a disparaging way.

Now, whether dear ol' AngrySoba is actually capable of intellectual discourse is another matter. But I will vote yes! After all, mere performance and capability are different, right?

(All meant in jest, of course, and I shouldn't have to say this, but I don't want any misinterpretation to lead to excessive moderation. AngrySoba is the only friend I have here, after all. Or anywhere.)

 

[Denver]

I think Paul Ryan will abandon him before the election, if the polls show a big enough lead for Clinton.

Breaking on CNN
Paul Ryan said he won't defend Donald Trump
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/10/10/politics/paul-ryan-said-he-wont-defend-donald-trump/index.html

House Speaker Paul Ryan told fellow Republicans Monday he will no longer defend GOP nominee Donald Trump and will instead use the next 29 days to focus on preserving his party's hold on Congress

And there he goes!

 

[CapelDodger]

Given Rove's role in getting Dubya elected I would hesitate to characterize him as a lackey, even chief lackey. I'd reverse it.

I've often referred to the Cheney-Rove Administration myself.

Bush was Rove's ideal President - an affable nonentity who can bring in the rubes. The very opposite of Trump.

Rove's grand plan was derailed by the Tea Party, which was not his idea but the Koch brothers'. The resulting confusion let in Trump.

 

[CapelDodger]

Goldwater had at least a few newspapers supporting him. Trump has zero.

I heard the National Enquirer came out for him. I like to think it might be true so I haven't checked.

 

[slyjoe]

Some additional names:

...

Sen. John McCain (Ariz.)

...

McCain said he might write in Lindsey Graham.

John doesn't know the voting laws in Arizona. You have to be registered by September 29 to be an official write in candidate. Lindsey Graham is not.

 

[Denver]

There's really nothing Trump's campaign can do with his PR at this point to increase votes.
They have two options. 1) Try to reduce Hillary's votes with more attacks. 2) Spend more money and hope it helps.

Though, I suppose that is about the same situation for Clinton.

 

[Trebuchet]

McCain said he might write in Lindsey Graham.

John doesn't know the voting laws in Arizona. You have to be registered by September 29 to be an official write in candidate. Lindsey Graham is not.

That doesn't mean he can't write him in. It just means the vote won't count. Just as it wouldn't, to any practical extent, if Graham was an "official write in candidate". Other than as one less vote for Trump.

 

[acbytesla]

There's really nothing Trump's campaign can do with his PR at this point to increase votes.
They have two options. 1) Try to reduce Hillary's votes with more attacks. 2) Spend more money and hope it helps.

Though, I suppose that is about the same situation for Clinton.

There's a point where the die is cast and you can't change the outcome. Trump's latest barrage may help him get out the vote among the nut jobs who follow him but it is almost certainly not convince anyone else.

I'm curious about how soon he try to launch his own media company and when it will fold.

Also, how much money he made during the campaign.

 

[slyjoe]

That doesn't mean he can't write him in. It just means the vote won't count. Just as it wouldn't, to any practical extent, if Graham was an "official write in candidate". Other than as one less vote for Trump.

True - but I'm not sure how you write him in. The sample ballots I've seen don't have a space - you fill in an arrow for one of the presidential candidates, including the 16 write in candidates.

Maybe John can just scrawl "LINDSEY" across the front of his ballot - and void the whole thing.

 

[Seismosaurus]

Question from a non American. I hear of "write in" ballots. My impression is that US voters have a set of choices and then a box where they can just put the name of anybody they like, and if enough voters write a given name, he gets elected?

Is that accurate? It seems horribly impractical to me, to the point where I find it astonishing that it could be legal.