#NeverTrump GOP endorsements LATEST: Graham and Lee voted McMullin

[Fuzzy Bear]

To be fair, there are always non-endorsers. Chafee refused to support Bush in 2004, Boren refused to support Obama in 2008.

Usually just a max of one or two major officeholders per election though.

That's true, but I wonder how many of "never Trump" crowd would eventually fall in line if he's nominated. It would be quite difficult to face questions "why are you supporting liberal Hillary?"

Easy. The alternative is a racist demagogue with echoes of Benito Mussolini and policies similar to that of Nazi Germany. The alternative seems happy to have the support of white suprematists. That alone makes this election about more than mere politics, it's about what it means to be a citizen of this country. If being an American means a return to the kind of bigotry and hatred of the past, then by all means vote for Trump. But if not, the only alternative is Hillary.

Now I'm a Trump voter, at least in the primary.  I voted for him because I agreed with him on my big three issues of (1) anti-Free Trade, (2) anti-war and nation-building, and (3) reigning in illegal and reducing overall immigration (as I believe this to be both the National Will and the National Interest).  The Trump Show doesn't do much for me.  The Hostile Takeover of the GOP Establishment makes me happy, however; they have done their darndest to get large blocs of Republicans to vote against their interest for decades, so now those chickens are coming home to roost. 

I have respect for the Republicans who say they won't support Trump.  Some of them have deep policy differences, some of them are afraid of alienating Democrats they need to be re-elected, and some honestly don't like his persona.  What I don't have respect for are those Republicans who put Trump down, call him a bigot, racist, etc, but then say he's better than Hillary, so they'll support him if he's the nominee.  They're only better than the cowards who won't answer the question on the grounds that "Trump's not going to be the nominee."

[Fuzzy Bear]

Why is Romney in the title? I don't think he's said that he won't back Trump in the general, has he?

He has. He'd vote third party or write someone in.

Link?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-mPf7hhQ1Q

I stand corrected.

I have a little more respect for Romney now.  I have no respect for the Republicans who will back Trump if he wins the nomination.  If Trump's THAT BAD a HUMAN BEING; if it's not just issue differences, then why would you support him at all if his character is that low?  Think about that.  The GOP (for the most part, is saying, "He's a scumbag, but if he's nominated, he's OUR scumbag."  If Trump's THAT bad, it's time for these folks to fish or cut bait.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Why is Romney in the title? I don't think he's said that he won't back Trump in the general, has he?

He has. He'd vote third party or write someone in.

Link?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-mPf7hhQ1Q

I stand corrected.

I have a little more respect for Romney now.  I have no respect for the Republicans who will back Trump if he wins the nomination.  If Trump's THAT BAD a HUMAN BEING; if it's not just issue differences, then why would you support him at all if his character is that low?  Think about that.  The GOP (for the most part, is saying, "He's a scumbag, but if he's nominated, he's OUR scumbag."  If Trump's THAT bad, it's time for these folks to fish or cut bait.

Honestly though, I would respect him more if he voted for Clinton. Voting third party accomplishes nothing.

He now lives in highly non-competitive Utah, so voting for anyone accomplishes nothing.

Uh, I'll have you know that Utah is more likely to vote Democratic than Colorado.

I have trouble believing the polls that put Sanders and Clinton ahead of Trump, but you may be right.

[Fuzzy Bear]

I was sore for months about Trump, but I'm over it, and the establishment needs to get over it too.

I'm not sore about Trump. Conservatives aren't sore about Trump. We are furious and angry that a man who doesn't represent our values or our party or our ideology dares to claim it, dares to lie about it, and dares to defame all who disagree. I am not over it. I am not establishment. I am a conservative Constitutionalist who is concerned for the future of America and wants true freedom and a true defender of the Constitution. I won't give up until Trump passes 1237 and if he doesn't, then I will carry and defend my values to the convention and pray for a Cruz nomination.

You, and many like you, have grossly failed to consider who actually makes up your party.  Your party is made up by scads of folks who are not "Constitutional conservatives".  It has large numbers of paleoconservatives, large numbers of non-ideological moderates, a significant group of libertarian-Republicans, and a number of populists who are authoritarian.  Folks like you thought that the GOP nomination was a contest as to who would prove to be the "purest" conservative, but you failed to accurately take into account just exactly who the GOP really is.

Let's understand that Donald Trump is winning fair elections; it's certainly not that he's utilizing Bush Family resources to stuff ballot boxes.  And the votes he's winning are the votes of folks who vote Republican for President; even the independents who voted in GOP primaries in some states are folks who, truly, lean Republican overall, and are likely GOP Presidential voters. 

Trump is giving voice to the viewpoints of a huge swath of the GOP that has always been there.  They've had their spokespersons in the form of Pat Buchanan in 1996 and Tom Tancredo in 2008, but now they have a guy who can self-fund speaking for them.  They may not be "constitutional conservatives", but they are very much part of the Republican base, even if Reince Priebus was too asleep at the switch to figure this out.  Trump's campaign has put to rest the idea that Republicans lose because they don't run as small-government conservatives.  The GOP is NOT a party of "constitutional conservatives".  Indeed, the number of paleoconservatives and populist conservatives in the GOP probably outnumbers the "constitutional conservative" wing by a huge amount.  Socrates advised, "Know thyself."  The GOP would be better off if it had done precisely that.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Trump's most serious break with the Republican Party is immigration. This is indisputable.

Not being anti-free trade?

Anti-free trade is the bigger break; it touches the wallets of the Establishment in a more direct way.

The GOP has long been anti-immigrant.  Trump has just forced them to be honest about trying to have it both ways.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Paleos are constitutional conservatives.

Pat Buchanan is the leading Paleoconservative, and he is Trump's biggest fan. 

Ross Perot and the Reform Party were more Paleoconservative than anything else.

[Fuzzy Bear]

any guesses which one of these Never Trumpers will speak at the DNC? My money is on Whitman.

Whitman might make a good VP pick for Hillary if she were shrewd enough.

[Fuzzy Bear]

It amazes me that this is such a vexing issue.  A party that doesn't back its Presidential nominee never does well in November, with the exception of the McGovern 1972 debacle for the Democrats.  Even that was a different situation; you had a core of Southern and Border states whose Democratic Parties were estranged to varying degrees from the National Democratic Party. 

During the 1948 Democratic Nomination process, NC Governor R. Gregg Cherry announced his support for Truman's renomination, despite Truman's support for civil rights legislation.  "If Truman is not beaten at the convention, let's all get under the Democratic flag and help elect him.  Afterward, we can have our Representatives and Senators beat him down when he needs beating."  This seems to me to be more of a realistic strategy for Republicans than the silliness they're indulging in now.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Add in David Jolly. CLC will vote for TRUMP but isn't happy about it:

http://www.bradenton.com/news/politics-government/election/article75570552.html

I'm very late to respond to this, but should be noted that Jolly is saying that he's still undecided on whether to vote for Trump or not.  Not that he's ruling it out.

Jolly's in an interesting position now.  He was in a free-for-all primary for an open Senate seat (Rubio's) where he had a decent shot at winning, but now there is a good chance that Rubio may re-enter the race.  Prominent Republicans are urging him to re-enter; the stumbling block is Lt. Gov. Carlos Lopez-Cantera, who is a personal friend of Rubio, and whom Rubio does not wish to offend.

If Lopez-Cantera has to resign as Lt. Governor for running for the Senate, Jolly could be someone Gov. Rick Scott could pick to fill the void.  Scott, however, is unabashedly for Trump, as is FL AG Pam Bondi, so Jolly would be bucking Florida's GOP Establishment by going #NeverTrump.   

[Fuzzy Bear]

In this interview (at about the ~4:20 mark) Mitch McConnell is asked if he thinks Donald Trump is fit to be president, and he dodges the question, simply saying that “The American people will decide” in November:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-utLdJo69U

So we have the Republican Speaker of the House endorsing the party’s presidential nominee, yet accusing him of making racist comments, and the Republican Senate Majority Leader endorsing the party’s presidential nominee, but not answering the question when asked if he’s actually fit to be president.

Seems like a healthy political party.

Trump and his supporters have completely hijacked the GOP, and there's no coming back.

As someone who has never supported a Democrat for president, and only a very small handful of times for other positions, I, for one, will never support a Republican for any position if they endorse Trump in this election. That is an immediate disqualifier for me, no matter the position, no matter the opponent; an endorsement for Trump today is an opposition vote from me in the future.

Trump's supporters haven't "hijacked" the GOP.  The GOP elites lived in this fantasy world where they could scare people with "higher taxes are coming" to vote for candidates who are all for wars, free trade, and liberal immigration policies.  The REAL Republican party spoke, and it's different from the positions papers of Rubio, Jeb!, and Cruz.

[Fuzzy Bear]

In this interview (at about the ~4:20 mark) Mitch McConnell is asked if he thinks Donald Trump is fit to be president, and he dodges the question, simply saying that “The American people will decide” in November:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-utLdJo69U

So we have the Republican Speaker of the House endorsing the party’s presidential nominee, yet accusing him of making racist comments, and the Republican Senate Majority Leader endorsing the party’s presidential nominee, but not answering the question when asked if he’s actually fit to be president.

Seems like a healthy political party.

Trump and his supporters have completely hijacked the GOP, and there's no coming back.

As someone who has never supported a Democrat for president, and only a very small handful of times for other positions, I, for one, will never support a Republican for any position if they endorse Trump in this election. That is an immediate disqualifier for me, no matter the position, no matter the opponent; an endorsement for Trump today is an opposition vote from me in the future.

Trump's supporters haven't "hijacked" the GOP.  The GOP elites lived in this fantasy world where they could scare people with "higher taxes are coming" to vote for candidates who are all for wars, free trade, and liberal immigration policies.  The REAL Republican party spoke, and it's different from the positions papers of Rubio, Jeb!, and Cruz.

You realize those position papers got more votes than Trump, even counting in the votes Trump received when he was completely unopposed, right?

Position papers don't get votes.  Candidates do.  If those "position papers" were as reflective of the rank and file GOP as you assert, Trump would not have gotten the nomination.  The GOP electorate would have coalesced around a candidate that adhered to those positions, just as the Democratic electorate would have coalesced around a candidate other than George Wallace in 1972, had Wallace not been shot.  (Wallace was the leading Democratic vote-getter in 1972 at the time he was shot.) 

It was hardly unclear to the GOP electorate that Trump was not in sync with the low tax/free trade/neocon foreign policy mantras that the GOP has pushed for several decades now.  That they chose DONALD TRUMP by LARGE PLURALITIES, and that these pluralities grew as the field winnowed, is, to me, indisputable proof that the GOP rank and file is not in sync with its leadership.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Governor of Maryland --- does his decision matter?

Every Republican Governor or other major Republican holding a prominent position, state or federal, that "rejects" trump "matters." Makes no difference from which state the Republican is from.
The level of well-known Republicans who are not supporting trump is unprecedented. The norm is that these Republicans either, genuinely like their presidential candidate or at the very least, say nothing negative.
That is not the case in 2016. Actually, it is far from normal. This just shows how much disgust everyone has for clownish trump.

I will say that it is looking like the Democrats who abandoned McGovern in 1972. 

[Fuzzy Bear]

One thing that's been hard for me to reconcile. Polls have broadly suggested that Trump is competitive with Clinton, pulling nearly all Republican voters (like 85%-90%). At the same time, rather significant numbers of GOP officeholders and party people are out against Trump. And presumably even more of them are privately opposed to him but feel the need to prioritize unity in their public image.

Now, I know people say that there is a gap between the "establishment" and the Republican voters (and clearly there is). But surely, Republican politicians must SOMEWHAT represent real Republicans? Like, I'd have expected there to be a decent chunk of Republican voters who'd feel similarly repulsed by Trump.

In the CBS/NYT poll, for example, if you look at the 3-way matchup that includes Gary Johnson, the %age of Republicans backing Trump is about 80%.  The other 20% are either for Johnson, for Clinton, or undecided.  (And same with the Democrats and Clinton.  Only about 80% of them back Clinton if you list a 3rd party option.  Also, ~20% of Republicans have an unfavorable opinion of Trump, just as ~20% of Dems have an unfavorable opinion of Clinton.)

And the thing is, among Republican *politicians*, that is actually pretty representative.  About 80% of them have at least nominally said that they "support the nominee".  The rest are mostly undecided, with many saying they'll write in a name or not vote for president at all.  But that is unusual.  Usually, ~99% of politicians belonging to one of the major political parties supports that party's nominee for president, even if the voters are unenthusiastic.  Usually the party defectors among the electorate are not actually represented by politicians.  This time, it looks like they are, at least on the Republican side.

What has happened is that Trump has exposed the REAL Republican Party as being something different than it really is.  Trump, himself, is really an anti-neocon moderate Republican who comes to be a moderate by taking positions that are different from both the Democrats and Republican orthodoxy, but which reflect the views of much of the rank and file of the GOP.

If my statement above isn't true, than Trump could never have gotten within 100 miles of the GOP nomination.  He's where he is because a whole swath of Republicans have been poorly represented by their party for a long time.  These Republicans were neither neocons nor "small government" conservatives, but they were regular supporters of the GOP Presidential ticket.  In Trump, they finally found a candidate who reflected their views for the first time in decades. 

[Fuzzy Bear]

Susan Collins will not be voting for Trump.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/gop-senator-why-i-cannot-support-trump/2016/08/08/821095be-5d7e-11e6-9d2f-b1a3564181a1_story.html

that's a pretty big deal, especially as Trump is trying to win Maine or at least ME2.

I really like Collins. I'm glad she dumped trump.

Collins may switch parties. 

If Trump is THAT BAD, why isn't Collins endorsing Clinton?  She's not a conservative Republican; she's the most liberal Republican in the Senate, and no less than a moderate, in terms of the overall spectrum.  If Trump is such a scumbag, why isn't an endorsement of Hillary Clinton too much of a leap for Susan Collins?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I hear this a lot from the #NeverTrump crowd.  I just love being "understood" by the elitists of politics, Susan Collins being a personification of that elitism.  But the public HAS demanded action, and Susan Collins' response is to reinforce the Globalism that has ruined the lives of so much of the "public" that is demanding "action".  If Susan Collins will not respond affirmatively to the demands of the public with its accompanying real passions that chose Donald Trump as the nominee of her party, they what will it take to get her to respond affirmatively to those demands for action?  Riots in the streets?  A March On Washington like the 1931 Bonus Marchers?  Susan Collins cares not one whit for the folks that are, in fact, demanding action.  She doesn't want to act on their demands.  That's the condescending excrement she throws out.  If there's one thing I hate, it's folks who want to tell me how justified my grievances are, yet not want to address a single one of them, except for MAYBE the most trivial.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Susan Collins will not be voting for Trump.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/gop-senator-why-i-cannot-support-trump/2016/08/08/821095be-5d7e-11e6-9d2f-b1a3564181a1_story.html

that's a pretty big deal, especially as Trump is trying to win Maine or at least ME2.

I really like Collins. I'm glad she dumped trump.

Collins may switch parties. 

If Trump is THAT BAD, why isn't Collins endorsing Clinton?  She's not a conservative Republican; she's the most liberal Republican in the Senate, and no less than a moderate, in terms of the overall spectrum.  If Trump is such a scumbag, why isn't an endorsement of Hillary Clinton too much of a leap for Susan Collins?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I hear this a lot from the #NeverTrump crowd.  I just love being "understood" by the elitists of politics, Susan Collins being a personification of that elitism.  But the public HAS demanded action, and Susan Collins' response is to reinforce the Globalism that has ruined the lives of so much of the "public" that is demanding "action".  If Susan Collins will not respond affirmatively to the demands of the public with its accompanying real passions that chose Donald Trump as the nominee of her party, they what will it take to get her to respond affirmatively to those demands for action?  Riots in the streets?  A March On Washington like the 1931 Bonus Marchers?  Susan Collins cares not one whit for the folks that are, in fact, demanding action.  She doesn't want to act on their demands.  That's the condescending excrement she throws out.  If there's one thing I hate, it's folks who want to tell me how justified my grievances are, yet not want to address a single one of them, except for MAYBE the most trivial.

Collins would stand far removed ideologically from the rest of the D caucus, far more so than she is currently separated from the rest of the GOP caucus.

I honestly don't believe so.  As many Southern Democrats who switched parties became more conservative, Collins would become more liberal.  Conservative Democrats and Liberal Republicans make many votes that are accomodations to their party, but which are not truly reflective of their own beliefs.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Susan Collins will not be voting for Trump.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/gop-senator-why-i-cannot-support-trump/2016/08/08/821095be-5d7e-11e6-9d2f-b1a3564181a1_story.html

that's a pretty big deal, especially as Trump is trying to win Maine or at least ME2.

I really like Collins. I'm glad she dumped trump.

Collins may switch parties. 

If Trump is THAT BAD, why isn't Collins endorsing Clinton?  She's not a conservative Republican; she's the most liberal Republican in the Senate, and no less than a moderate, in terms of the overall spectrum.  If Trump is such a scumbag, why isn't an endorsement of Hillary Clinton too much of a leap for Susan Collins?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I hear this a lot from the #NeverTrump crowd.  I just love being "understood" by the elitists of politics, Susan Collins being a personification of that elitism.  But the public HAS demanded action, and Susan Collins' response is to reinforce the Globalism that has ruined the lives of so much of the "public" that is demanding "action".  If Susan Collins will not respond affirmatively to the demands of the public with its accompanying real passions that chose Donald Trump as the nominee of her party, they what will it take to get her to respond affirmatively to those demands for action?  Riots in the streets?  A March On Washington like the 1931 Bonus Marchers?  Susan Collins cares not one whit for the folks that are, in fact, demanding action.  She doesn't want to act on their demands.  That's the condescending excrement she throws out.  If there's one thing I hate, it's folks who want to tell me how justified my grievances are, yet not want to address a single one of them, except for MAYBE the most trivial.

Not to be condescending, but since the solutions you want are really stupid and pointless it kind of leaves them in a bind - either they're willing to pander to you by lying and spouting nonsense (see Trump) or they aren't and then you'll keep getting madz.

"Stupid and pointless" is what a number of folks think are the very lives of Trump supporters.  That's why it's so easy for them to dismiss their plight as displaced workers.

If their very lives were not viewed as "stupid and pointless", solutions to their very real problems would be sought actively by folks who, frankly, view their lot as some sort of karma for their opposition to "progressive" values.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Senator Kirk (R-IL): "I'll write in Colin Powell".

He's lost it. How in the world can you even justify this? At least have the decency to write in Cruz.

This RINO deserves to be hunted.

These gutless, ignorant imbeciles who are going to "write in" another candidate are a joke.

Firstly, the election is for ELECTORS, not for a candidate.  An effective write-in vote would have to be for specific electors to be effective.

Secondly, most states won't even count such write-in votes; they'll be ineffective.

They need to show some guts and at least endorse a minor party candidate, or just state that you're abstaining, but don't say you're "writing in" some other Republican to show your party loyalty.  If you're going to bolt, be honest about it.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Donald Trump gave a strong, unqualified endorsement of John McCain, in sufficient time for the Arizona GOP Senate primary.  This is politics; I can't think of a better way to say "I'm sorry!" than such a gesture. 

That's not good enough for Jeffy Flaky?  Wowsers!  One of two things is true.  Either (A) he just doesn't get that politics is a team sport, or (B) he's one of these "free trade" neocon Republicans that never intended to support Trump because of the support they get from those who profit off of "free trade".  There's nothing Trump could have done to get Flake's support, period. 

And good for Trump to show he's not going to be pushed around by the "demands" of folks like Flake.  Flake wants Trump to damage his campaign with "apologies", which are never accepted, and do nothing but convince Trump's enemies that they were right all along about him.  He shouldn't have made some of these comments, but this is politics, and the demands that he apologize from folks like Flake are insincere.  He needs an excuse for the 2018 primary voters he'll surely have to face.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Donald Trump gave a strong, unqualified endorsement of John McCain, in sufficient time for the Arizona GOP Senate primary.  This is politics; I can't think of a better way to say "I'm sorry!" than such a gesture.

I can.  It would have been to say "I'm sorry" specifically for denigrating McCain's POW history.  That's how adults behave, you see.

You may think that doing so would be "damaging" to Trump's campaign, which says far more about you than anybody else.

I view damaging Trump's election chances by caving to the Jeff Flakes of the world a form of using an unimportant issue to give Trump a disadvantage in the election over Hillary Clinton, whose disadvantages stem from important and substantive issues.

Why should Trump cave here?  If he caves to Flakey Jeffy on this issue, why wouldn't someone like myself, who's in agreement with Trump far more than the rest of the GOP on issues, think that Trump won't cave on key platform issues if he gives in on something so unsubstantive.  Was it a thoughtless comment?  Yes, but it was aimed at a war hero who ditched a faithful wife who waited for him for a younger, prettier, and richer woman.  (And I voted for McCain in 2008.)  If I were Trump's advisor, I'd tell him to stand his ground here.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Donald Trump gave a strong, unqualified endorsement of John McCain, in sufficient time for the Arizona GOP Senate primary.  This is politics; I can't think of a better way to say "I'm sorry!" than such a gesture.

I can.  It would have been to say "I'm sorry" specifically for denigrating McCain's POW history.  That's how adults behave, you see.

You may think that doing so would be "damaging" to Trump's campaign, which says far more about you than anybody else.

I view damaging Trump's election chances by caving to the Jeff Flakes of the world a form of using an unimportant issue to give Trump a disadvantage in the election over Hillary Clinton, whose disadvantages stem from important and substantive issues.

Why should Trump cave here?  If he caves to Flakey Jeffy on this issue, why wouldn't someone like myself, who's in agreement with Trump far more than the rest of the GOP on issues, think that Trump won't cave on key platform issues if he gives in on something so unsubstantive.  Was it a thoughtless comment?  Yes, but it was aimed at a war hero who ditched a faithful wife who waited for him for a younger, prettier, and richer woman.  (And I voted for McCain in 2008.)  If I were Trump's advisor, I'd tell him to stand his ground here.

People like you are why the party will get crushed in november.

Why?  Having voted for Obama in 2012 and Kerry in 2004, I'd be a net addition to the GOP ranks if I vote Trump, would I not?

The GOP isn't in trouble because of folks like me.  It's in trouble because it took the votes of folks like me, more often than not, but advocated policies not in my interest.  Free Trade.  Nation-Building wars.  Entangling alliances.  Policies that are great for "the World", but not for America.  This year, Donald Trump, of all people, exposed the fact that the GOP isn't this free-trade, movement conservative monolith; that there was a huge number of Republicans who didn't subscribe to the standard fare the GOP had been putting forth since the Bush 41 years.

For better or worse, this election is one of Americanism vs. Globalism.  That's better than having two (2) Globalist parties. 

[Fuzzy Bear]

Donald Trump gave a strong, unqualified endorsement of John McCain, in sufficient time for the Arizona GOP Senate primary.  This is politics; I can't think of a better way to say "I'm sorry!" than such a gesture. 

That's not good enough for Jeffy Flaky?  Wowsers!  One of two things is true.  Either (A) he just doesn't get that politics is a team sport, or (B) he's one of these "free trade" neocon Republicans that never intended to support Trump because of the support they get from those who profit off of "free trade".  There's nothing Trump could have done to get Flake's support, period. 

And good for Trump to show he's not going to be pushed around by the "demands" of folks like Flake.  Flake wants Trump to damage his campaign with "apologies", which are never accepted, and do nothing but convince Trump's enemies that they were right all along about him.  He shouldn't have made some of these comments, but this is politics, and the demands that he apologize from folks like Flake are insincere.  He needs an excuse for the 2018 primary voters he'll surely have to face.

You are criticizing Jeff Flake for not being a team player at the same time as you are supporting Trump?

I'm making the observation that, as Rick Santorum accurately said in 2012, "Politics is a Team Sport".  In that vein, I view the failure of a politician in elected office (and, especially, at the state or national level) who doesn't support their party's national ticket as a one-way bus fare to ineffectiveness and oblivion. 

The Presidential nominee who, while in high office, was the coolest to his party's nominee prior to running for President, was, undoubtedly, Jimmy Carter in 1972.  Even there, Jimmy Carter, while noting that McGovern was losing Georgia 2 to 1 (he ended up losing it 3 to 1) made it clear that he would vote for McGovern, even though he would not campaign with him.  Ronald Reagan's differences with Ford were overstated in the press; he made an unqualified endorsement of Ford and repeated it several times during the campaign. 

No politician in history has done what, say, Ted Cruz has done and been nominated for the Presidency.  No one has done what, say, Joe Lieberman or Zell Miller have done and been nominated for the Presidency.  Indeed, mere failure to support their party's opposition ticket has made toast of more than one career.  George Romney.  Nelson Rockefeller.  William Scranton.  George Wallace.  (Had Wallace remained a Democrat and NOMINALLY supported the Democratic ticket, even if simply by saying "I'm voting for the ticket, but I'm not asking anyone else to.", he may well have been the 1976 Democratic nominee, and not Carter.)  A number of Nixon Democrats or, at a minimum, non-McGovern Democrats in 1972 lost their committee chairs in 1974.  A number of 1972 Democrats who did not support McGovern lost primaries afterward, including Lester Maddox, Dolph Briscoe, and Ed Edmondson. 

The Republicans who refuse to back Trump will be toast, all in due time.  If Donald Trump is not elected, Mike Pence, the SUPERSTAR of this fall's election, climbs to the top of the 2020 GOP heap, and NO ONE will supplant him.  And Pence will not reward those who abandoned a ticket with him on it.  Flake, who's kind of stupid, IMO, will be one of those folks.  He's worked to find a way to NOT support Trump, and he's found it.  And he'll be primaried out of office in 2018 because he's too stupid to be loyal.

The #NeverTrump crowd is in the process of destroying their political careers as Republicans.  For many of them, the only hope they'll have is the option to become Democrats, and then, they'll have to hope that their switch is credible.

[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.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Former HHS Secretary Louis Wade Sullivan endorsed Clinton:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/louis-w-sullivan-hillary-clinton_us_57cf06dee4b06a74c9f0cf74

Bush 41 supposedly told a group of ~40 people that he intends to vote for Clinton, but he won't actually confirm that on the record:

http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/20/politics/george-hw-bush-hillary-clinton/index.html?adkey=bn

Not sure what category to include him in then, as he won't actually go on the record with this information.  Sources who were there say he said it, but he won't confirm that.  Thoughts?

Unless anyone explicitly contradicts this, I'd say include it. That being said Kennedy Townsend's public disclosure seems to have been in rather poor taste.

I actually think this is how Bush 41 wanted it to play out.  He can't stand Trump, and he is concerned about his legacy and his sons' legacies.  This is how he gets to have it both ways.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Update: Silent Cal on Atlas rejoins the #NeverTrump crowd. He also pledges #NeverClinton #NeverJohnson

What caused your change of heart.

[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.