Jason Chaffetz: "I won't defend Trump, i won't endorse Trump but i vote for him"

[Fuzzy Bear]

When Chaffetz commented on Trump's "locker room talk" comment and said he never heard such language in a locker room, I knew that he was full of beans.  That's too much to believe, even for a BYU athlete.

Chaffetz wants McMullin to win, but he doesn't want to be held responsible for it.  He, like a number of the GOP, wish to somehow elect a Constitutional Conservative through the Electoral College.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Seriously, this guy might be the worse yet. Rubio and Ryan are awful, but they have been waffling for months. This guy put his ass front in center and talked about how he could not look his daughters in the eye if he voted for Trump and now he comes out and says this?

He needs to be premiered in two years.

He may be primaried.  This Mormon revolt against Trump is the Real Meal Deal.  Mormon voters in Utah have made it plain that they will not casually accept a person they consider to be an affront to their morality.  Unlike a lot of the #NeverTrump Tut-Tutters, they've actually done something about it that makes sense, which is to vote McMullin.

On the other hand, I think Chaffetz has gotten the message that there will be consequences if Trump loses because he lost Utah.  It would be bad for Chaffetz if McMullin carried Utah after his comments, but it would be even worse if CLINTON carried Utah.  Clinton carrying Utah could actually elect her in a scenario in which she would otherwise lose because the Mormons supporting McMullin are going for broke with their strategy.

[Fuzzy Bear]

A public statement that he will vote for Trump is an endorsement.  Just because he didn't use the specific word "endorsement" doesn't make it any less so.

That's debatable.  But it's more of an "endorsement" than Rep. Bob Sikes (D-FL) 1968 "endorsement" of HHH.  "I'm voting for the Democratic ticket, but I'm not asking anyone else to."  That embodies "support, but not endorse" better than any statement I've ever heard from a candidate.

[Fuzzy Bear]

It's worth revisiting original Chaffetz's statement unendorsing Trump:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What a spineless little worm.

My initial response to the Trump video was to support Johnson.  After thinking about it, the video was over 10 years old, and while it didn't reflect well on Trump, the election is, truly, a binary choice, and Hillary is someone who worked to discredit her husband's sexual assault accusers, so it's not like there's this clear moral choice here. 

Of course, if I were a public official, it might have behooved me to not run off at the mouth right away.  Chaffetz has never wanted to back Trump, period, and he thought he had his "out", but I suspect that since then, he's felt the pushback and has had to backtrack.

[Fuzzy Bear]

It's worth revisiting original Chaffetz's statement unendorsing Trump:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What a spineless little worm.

My initial response to the Trump video was to support Johnson.  After thinking about it, the video was over 10 years old, and while it didn't reflect well on Trump, the election is, truly, a binary choice, and Hillary is someone who worked to discredit her husband's sexual assault accusers, so it's not like there's this clear moral choice here. 

Of course, if I were a public official, it might have behooved me to not run off at the mouth right away.  Chaffetz has never wanted to back Trump, period, and he thought he had his "out", but I suspect that since then, he's felt the pushback and has had to backtrack.

Chaffetz's district is almost certainly going to give a plurality to McMullin, and if not, McMullin+Clinton are going to easily be well over 60% of the vote. This is Chaffetz being so desperate to support the Republican nominee that he still votes for Trump, in spite of the push from his district to vote against.

On the other hand, McMullin + Trump will be well over 60% in Chaffetz's district, and Trump is, after all, a Republican, and more conservative than Clinton by a decent enough stretch to where the relatively literate and aware voters of Chaffetz's district would not hold a vote for Trump against him. 

Chaffetz is doing what he has to do to keep his power prospects in the GOP-led House as viable as possible.  I can't overemphasize how bad it is for the Congressional career of any Representative or Senator of either party who is caught not supporting his/her Presidential ticket.  Everything else is suspect.  If Joe Lieberman had supported Obama in 2008, all would have been forgiven, and he'd still be in the Senate as a Democrat today.

[Fuzzy Bear]

trump is more "liberal" than clinton in many ways....even if you take his daily changing positions by face value, he still breaks the alliance between social conservatives (leaders love him), fiscal conservatives (who are split between those who mumble inside his ear and believe they control him and those who don't trust him) and national security/neocons (who hate him with the power of 1000 suns and are mostly voting clinton).

if you see him as a conservative depends mostly on which part of reagan's 3-legged-stool you belong to.

Trump has made something of a Faustian Bargain with conservatives in the GE, but you are correct in that Trump is not a conservative in the sense of what we have come to expect in a GOP Presidential candidate.

He's still more conservative than Hillary, in that if elected President, both he and Hillary will tend to govern to please the folks who elected them.  The last President to fail to do this was Jimmy Carter, and that didn't end well (for Carter) at all.