Bill Kristol announces someone will run 3rd party UPDATE: It's David French
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 12:31:25 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2016 U.S. Presidential Election
  Bill Kristol announces someone will run 3rd party UPDATE: It's David French
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7
Author Topic: Bill Kristol announces someone will run 3rd party UPDATE: It's David French  (Read 8882 times)
Gustaf
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,770


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: May 30, 2016, 10:07:08 AM »

It's amusing how Trump can't handle any pressure.
Logged
🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸
shua
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,665
Nepal


Political Matrix
E: 1.29, S: -0.70

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: May 30, 2016, 10:28:09 AM »

I really don't understand why Bill Kristol et al don't just get behind Johnson/Weld. I mean...they were good enough as Governors for the party, weren't they? Their views really haven't changed all that much. Ballot access in 49 states (and they may have it in OK this year, too).

I could see Kristol thinking something like "but the standard-bearer needs to be chosen by the elite establishment types like us for it to mean anything", but most of the types that'd be likely to vote for an independent conservative are in lock-step with Libertarian economy policy broadly speaking (worried about their personal incomes and levels of taxation, as opposed to those favoring subsidies for their industries and so forth, the latter of which makes up an insignificant sum of voters). They don't care about social issues one way or another for the most part.

Is Kristol still of the persuasion that they're going to be able to throw it to the House? Furthermore, does he believe that the GOP House would screw Trump in such a way when they haven't been willing to man up and attack him throughout this whole ordeal (perpetually until it was too late) or stay the course and try to pull the rug out from under him at the convention?

What makes you think people who would vote for an independent conservative against Trump mostly don't care about abortion or other social controversies?  If someone isn't willing to support Trump, that's likely the sort of issue they are passionate enough about that it would keep them from supporting Hillary either.  There are plenty who fall into this category, especially more educated religious conservatives.

And Kristol is a hawk, he wants someone more willing to be interventionist than Johnson.
Logged
Mike Thick
tedbessell
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,085


Political Matrix
E: -6.65, S: -8.26

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: May 30, 2016, 11:26:51 AM »

Yeah, Kristol is the ultimate (née the original) neocon. He'd never support a Libertarian.
Logged
RINO Tom
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,002
United States


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: -0.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: May 30, 2016, 11:50:56 AM »

^I think the long-term consequences at the presidential level would be far more disastrous for the GOP, with states like TX, MS and GA becoming battlegrounds. If the Democrats play their cards right, they'll be able to lock the GOP out of the White House for maybe another 20 years.

Nah, I doubt it.  When Trump loses, the unanimous backlash against him will be a sight to behold.  The GOP will recover quickly because their voters are idiots with short memories.  You talk about 1964; look what happened four years later.

Must be nice for your voters to all be super smart, as we all know the people who vote Democrat are.

LOL
Logged
RFayette
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,952
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: May 30, 2016, 11:53:01 AM »

^I think the long-term consequences at the presidential level would be far more disastrous for the GOP, with states like TX, MS and GA becoming battlegrounds. If the Democrats play their cards right, they'll be able to lock the GOP out of the White House for maybe another 20 years.

Nah, I doubt it.  When Trump loses, the unanimous backlash against him will be a sight to behold.  The GOP will recover quickly because their voters are idiots with short memories.  You talk about 1964; look what happened four years later.

That's not that good a comparison to make, considering there was a fairly strong third party challenge (Wallace) and Nixon won with only 42% nationally.

Look at the swings in states like Vermont, New Hampshire, California, etc.  In all the traditionally Republican Goldwater states that despised Goldwater, they swung strong to Nixon.
Logged
wolfsblood07
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 656
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: May 30, 2016, 12:16:10 PM »

What if this candidate is someone totally acceptable to the establishment GOP?  Someone like Scott Walker or Marco Rubio.  It could set up very interesting dynamics.  The establishment would be in a difficult position.  Would House Speaker Paul Ryan support Trump over one of those guys? 
Logged
NHI
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,140


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: May 30, 2016, 12:20:17 PM »

What if this candidate is someone totally acceptable to the establishment GOP?  Someone like Scott Walker or Marco Rubio.  It could set up very interesting dynamics.  The establishment would be in a difficult position.  Would House Speaker Paul Ryan support Trump over one of those guys? 

Hmm. Interesting conundrum indeed. I'm not sure how this one would go.
Logged
HAnnA MArin County
semocrat08
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,037
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: May 30, 2016, 12:27:35 PM »

If this happens, this will be a 1964 style landslide, with Republicans losing the Senate and the House.

It would be a 1964 style landslide on the presidential level, but why would it entail the Republicans losing congress?  I imagine both Trump voters and Pubs voting for Kristol's neocon will both vote for Pubs downballot.

It would mean the party tearing itself apart, with Republicans staying home en masse because the outcome of the election would be predetermined. Republicans can't possibly be that stupid, can they?

Never underestimate the stupidity of the party that gave us Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, Steve King, Louie Gohmert, etc. etc.

I don't see it happening, either. The protest vote was already going to go for Johnson/Libertarians, and I wouldn't think it would be nearly as substantial to be a spoiler. Then again, if the establishment thinks that Trump is going to lose anyway, they may feel as though they have nothing to lose by running another candidate if they really think that Hillary is going to win regardless. 
Logged
The Mikado
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,678


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: May 30, 2016, 12:57:17 PM »


They could optimistically get on the ballot in ~48 states, realistically ~45.
Logged
Mike Thick
tedbessell
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,085


Political Matrix
E: -6.65, S: -8.26

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: May 30, 2016, 04:10:17 PM »

Right now, CNN is discussing the prospect of Illinois Congressman Adam Kinzinger running third party.
Logged
PaperKooper
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 827
United States


Political Matrix
E: 5.23, S: 5.57

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: May 30, 2016, 04:27:59 PM »

Bill Kristol's editorial here implies that he's settling for a B- or C-list candidate:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/the-united-states-of-argentina/article/2002572

Logged
Clark Kent
ClarkKent
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,480
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: May 30, 2016, 04:28:38 PM »

Hurry up and tell us so I can change the banner in my signature.
Logged
Meclazine for Israel
Meclazine
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,661
Australia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: May 30, 2016, 04:36:15 PM »

I really don't understand how someone can think that a 3rd party conservative run will do *long term* damage to the GOP, unless the splinter conservative group remains outside the party beyond 2016 (which it won't, since its only purpose for existing would be to run a non-Trump candidate).  It would blow up Trump's chances this time, but why would it matter in 2020 or beyond?

Likewise, I don't see how it's going to hurt downballot, even this year.  Most of those voters are going to vote for Republicans for other offices.


Interesting question.

Is 4 years a long enough refreshment period for a failed political stance from a party?

Logged
Vosem
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,625
United States


Political Matrix
E: 8.13, S: -6.09

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: May 30, 2016, 04:38:29 PM »

Bill Kristol's editorial here implies that he's settling for a B- or C-list candidate:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/the-united-states-of-argentina/article/2002572



Kristol needs to understand that a ticket with two Governors on it is better than some random House member trying to raise his profile.
Logged
Fuzzy Stands With His Friend, Chairman Sanchez
Fuzzy Bear
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,504
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #39 on: May 30, 2016, 04:39:43 PM »

^I think the long-term consequences at the presidential level would be far more disastrous for the GOP, with states like TX, MS and GA becoming battlegrounds. If the Democrats play their cards right, they'll be able to lock the GOP out of the White House for maybe another 20 years.

Nah, I doubt it.  When Trump loses, the unanimous backlash against him will be a sight to behold.  The GOP will recover quickly because their voters are idiots with short memories.  You talk about 1964; look what happened four years later.

That's not that good a comparison to make, considering there was a fairly strong third party challenge (Wallace) and Nixon won with only 42% nationally.

Wallace wasn't a third-party candidate in the truest sense of the word.  He never really left the Democratic Party, and he was the Democratic nominee for President in Alabama.  He did not field a slate of Congressional candidates, and many Democratic politicians in the South openly supported Wallace in 1968.

1968 was a year where Democratic voters in the South left the national Democratic party, but a minority of those went to the GOP, even at the Presidential level.  Indeed, the Southern Democrats were a hardy breed; it is only since 2010 that they have truly died, not to be resurrected.  They had been weakened progressively over time, but still managed to come back until 2010; now, there's no immediate pathway back for most of them.
Logged
Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin
Runeghost
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,367


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #40 on: May 30, 2016, 05:26:33 PM »
« Edited: May 30, 2016, 05:28:08 PM by Runeghost »

If this happens, this will be a 1964 style landslide, with Republicans losing the Senate and the House.

It would be a 1964 style landslide on the presidential level, but why would it entail the Republicans losing congress?  I imagine both Trump voters and Pubs voting for Kristol's neocon will both vote for Pubs downballot.

It would mean the party tearing itself apart, with Republicans staying home en masse because the outcome of the election would be predetermined. Republicans can't possibly be that stupid, can they?

1) The party is already shredded. Look at the list of those skipping the convention.

2) With the nomination of Trump, Republicans have demonstrated that there is no lower bound to their collective stupidity.
Logged
Vega
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,253
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #41 on: May 30, 2016, 06:24:44 PM »

It either has to be hot air or else an actually big name. Maybe Romney, or maybe even McCain realizing that he is doomed in AZ-SEN and putting his money where his mouth is and actually putting "Country First" to atone for Palin.

If you look at that National Review article that was posted in this thread, it goes to show they're aiming for a real C lister to run.

The only way something like this would actually work though is if a big name in the party would run, not some no name Congressman or Senator.
Logged
Clark Kent
ClarkKent
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,480
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #42 on: May 30, 2016, 06:44:04 PM »

I don't know if anyone's posted this yet, but Romney/Martinez seems like a good bet.
Logged
HagridOfTheDeep
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,720
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -4.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #43 on: May 30, 2016, 07:12:58 PM »

I don't know if anyone's posted this yet, but Romney/Martinez seems like a good bet.

Purple heart Purple heart Purple heart Purple heart
Logged
Mr. Morden
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,073
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #44 on: May 30, 2016, 07:15:53 PM »

Right now, CNN is discussing the prospect of Illinois Congressman Adam Kinzinger running third party.

Sounds like he's out:

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/05/30/politics/adam-kinzinger-no-path-third-party-run/

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Logged
sparkey
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,103


Political Matrix
E: 6.71, S: -7.30

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #45 on: May 30, 2016, 08:02:36 PM »

Ballot access laws are too difficult to make this happen?

Who knew?
Logged
wolfsblood07
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 656
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #46 on: May 30, 2016, 08:55:08 PM »

^I think the long-term consequences at the presidential level would be far more disastrous for the GOP, with states like TX, MS and GA becoming battlegrounds. If the Democrats play their cards right, they'll be able to lock the GOP out of the White House for maybe another 20 years.

Nah, I doubt it.  When Trump loses, the unanimous backlash against him will be a sight to behold.  The GOP will recover quickly because their voters are idiots with short memories.  You talk about 1964; look what happened four years later.

That's not that good a comparison to make, considering there was a fairly strong third party challenge (Wallace) and Nixon won with only 42% nationally.

Wallace wasn't a third-party candidate in the truest sense of the word.  He never really left the Democratic Party, and he was the Democratic nominee for President in Alabama.  He did not field a slate of Congressional candidates, and many Democratic politicians in the South openly supported Wallace in 1968.

1968 was a year where Democratic voters in the South left the national Democratic party, but a minority of those went to the GOP, even at the Presidential level.  Indeed, the Southern Democrats were a hardy breed; it is only since 2010 that they have truly died, not to be resurrected.  They had been weakened progressively over time, but still managed to come back until 2010; now, there's no immediate pathway back for most of them.
The late Howell Heflin of Alabama comes to mind as one of the last old school southern Democrats in the Senate.  Guys like that were conservative on a lot of social issues and on the military.  But they often sided with the liberal Dems on a few issues like farm subsidies and various New Deal programs.  Of course many like Strom Thurmond were so angry over social issues that they joined the Republicans.
Logged
Adam Griffin
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,090
Greece


Political Matrix
E: -7.35, S: -6.26

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #47 on: May 31, 2016, 12:02:38 AM »

I really don't understand why Bill Kristol et al don't just get behind Johnson/Weld. I mean...they were good enough as Governors for the party, weren't they? Their views really haven't changed all that much. Ballot access in 49 states (and they may have it in OK this year, too).

I could see Kristol thinking something like "but the standard-bearer needs to be chosen by the elite establishment types like us for it to mean anything", but most of the types that'd be likely to vote for an independent conservative are in lock-step with Libertarian economy policy broadly speaking (worried about their personal incomes and levels of taxation, as opposed to those favoring subsidies for their industries and so forth, the latter of which makes up an insignificant sum of voters). They don't care about social issues one way or another for the most part.

Is Kristol still of the persuasion that they're going to be able to throw it to the House? Furthermore, does he believe that the GOP House would screw Trump in such a way when they haven't been willing to man up and attack him throughout this whole ordeal (perpetually until it was too late) or stay the course and try to pull the rug out from under him at the convention?

What makes you think people who would vote for an independent conservative against Trump mostly don't care about abortion or other social controversies?  If someone isn't willing to support Trump, that's likely the sort of issue they are passionate enough about that it would keep them from supporting Hillary either.  There are plenty who fall into this category, especially more educated religious conservatives.

And Kristol is a hawk, he wants someone more willing to be interventionist than Johnson.

With regard to abortion in particular:

1) Because the people who are likely being targeted by such an effort are largely going to be of that persuasion (or at the very least, issues like abortion aren't going to be the main reason they're not supporting Trump).

2) I fully expect the vast majority of single-issue voters regarding abortion - as other assorted evangelicals - to get lock, stock and barrel behind Trump; his history on the subject is no different than Romney's and their history of abandoning key tenets of their religion in pursuit of their partisan and personal worldviews is well-established.

3) The ones who actually would rebel over this/are consistent/aren't hypocrites likely did so in 2012 as well and/or are people who vote third-party fairly often, or who did in the past election at minimum. Therefore and in reality, they are not necessarily the targets of such a campaign that will only serve any meaningful purpose if its goal is to drain votes from Trump (aka Romney 2012 voters, or at least the ones who are rather mainline, moderate, well-off, etc). If they're consistent on the issue, then they were third-party voters 4 years ago as well.
Logged
🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸
shua
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,665
Nepal


Political Matrix
E: 1.29, S: -0.70

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #48 on: May 31, 2016, 12:52:12 AM »

I really don't understand why Bill Kristol et al don't just get behind Johnson/Weld. I mean...they were good enough as Governors for the party, weren't they? Their views really haven't changed all that much. Ballot access in 49 states (and they may have it in OK this year, too).

I could see Kristol thinking something like "but the standard-bearer needs to be chosen by the elite establishment types like us for it to mean anything", but most of the types that'd be likely to vote for an independent conservative are in lock-step with Libertarian economy policy broadly speaking (worried about their personal incomes and levels of taxation, as opposed to those favoring subsidies for their industries and so forth, the latter of which makes up an insignificant sum of voters). They don't care about social issues one way or another for the most part.

Is Kristol still of the persuasion that they're going to be able to throw it to the House? Furthermore, does he believe that the GOP House would screw Trump in such a way when they haven't been willing to man up and attack him throughout this whole ordeal (perpetually until it was too late) or stay the course and try to pull the rug out from under him at the convention?

What makes you think people who would vote for an independent conservative against Trump mostly don't care about abortion or other social controversies?  If someone isn't willing to support Trump, that's likely the sort of issue they are passionate enough about that it would keep them from supporting Hillary either.  There are plenty who fall into this category, especially more educated religious conservatives.

And Kristol is a hawk, he wants someone more willing to be interventionist than Johnson.

With regard to abortion in particular:

1) Because the people who are likely being targeted by such an effort are largely going to be of that persuasion (or at the very least, issues like abortion aren't going to be the main reason they're not supporting Trump).

2) I fully expect the vast majority of single-issue voters regarding abortion - as other assorted evangelicals - to get lock, stock and barrel behind Trump; his history on the subject is no different than Romney's and their history of abandoning key tenets of their religion in pursuit of their partisan and personal worldviews is well-established.

3) The ones who actually would rebel over this/are consistent/aren't hypocrites likely did so in 2012 as well and/or are people who vote third-party fairly often, or who did in the past election at minimum. Therefore and in reality, they are not necessarily the targets of such a campaign that will only serve any meaningful purpose if its goal is to drain votes from Trump (aka Romney 2012 voters, or at least the ones who are rather mainline, moderate, well-off, etc). If they're consistent on the issue, then they were third-party voters 4 years ago as well.

The difference is that Romney's personal life and general behavior was not directly contradictory to their moral views.  Pro-lifers are not generally single issue voters in the sense that you suggest, i.e. that they literally don't care about any other aspect of a candidate's positions or character, but there are many for whom support for abortion rights is still a deal-breaker, meaning a candidate being pro-life on abortion is necessary but not sufficient. 
Logged
SATW
SunriseAroundTheWorld
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,463
United States
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #49 on: May 31, 2016, 01:02:32 AM »

For me, a Kristol-styled Republican, opposing Johnson is more about personality then issues. He acts and seems like an A-hole. His position on abortion also bothers me and his foreign policy bothers me even more.

Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.074 seconds with 13 queries.