Breaking: George H.W. Bush to vote for Hillary

[Figueira]

How can anybody be surprised to Clinton bleeding so much millennial support to Johnson/Stein they are one of the most anti-war generations. They already know her FP record and then they see neocons lining up behind her of course they are going to be open to the actual antiwar candidates.

And if Trump wins the party needs to be on millennials ass for the next 4 years telling them to repent for getting him elected since it would likely fully be their fault that it happened.

Sure, blame the most pro-Clinton generation for Clinton's loss.

[Virginiá]

Nobody finds it troubling all these neocons lining up behind her? They seem very comfortable with her FP decisions Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen etc.

In the context of this election, no, it doesn't matter. They view Trump as completely unpalatable and insane. She is (or at least was) courting their endorsements as a way to try and peel off moderate Republicans as well. It's not like she privately lusts for these endorsements or votes.

Given the potential to turn off more liberal Democrats, if she felt these endorsements served no useful strategic purposes, then she would not seek them out and would actively discourage it (so as to mitigate issues with her base). As for votes like this, well, what is wrong with it with a Republican who thinks their nominee is unfit for office supporting/casting their vote for the only other reasonable candidate in the race?

[DS0816]

Terrific!

Another presidential endorsement for the nominee of the Republican Party, Part II—Hillary Clinton—by another member of the first Republican Party!

Is there any chance Dick Cheney will come through for Hillary Clinton?

[Maxwell]

Terrific!

Another presidential endorsement for the nominee of the Republican Party, Part II—Hillary Clinton—by another member of the first Republican Party!

Is there any chance Dick Cheney will come through for Hillary Clinton?

Cheney endorsed Trump a long time ago, as did Rumsfeld, the two major architects of the Iraq War.

[Panda Express]

How can anybody be surprised to Clinton bleeding so much millennial support to Johnson/Stein they are one of the most anti-war generations. They already know her FP record and then they see neocons lining up behind her of course they are going to be open to the actual antiwar candidates.

I suspect you won't really answer this but if Hillary is SO BAD, why did Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren endorse her? Is it because

A: Hillary Clinton really isn't THAT bad and agrees with Bernie/Warren on he vast majority of the issues

or

B: BENGHAZI

[DrScholl]

3 out of 4 living Presidents supporting you is pretty good.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Wow!  Does something like this have historical precedent?

This is pretty unprecedented. The best example that comes to mind is the election of 1896, when Grover Cleveland privately supported the National "Gold" Democrats over William J. Bryan (the party had wanted to nominate Cleveland for a third term, but he declined). In 1844, John Tyler - who had been elected vice president as a Whig in the previous election - endorsed James K. Polk over the Whig nominee, Henry Clay, but as Tyler had been expelled from the Whig Party shortly after assuming the presidency, it doesn't really count.

Terrific!

Another presidential endorsement for the nominee of the Republican Party, Part II—Hillary Clinton—by another member of the first Republican Party!

Is there any chance Dick Cheney will come through for Hillary Clinton?

Cheney endorsed Trump a long time ago, as did Rumsfeld, the two major architects of the Iraq War.

But Trump was against Iraq from the beginning! [/sarcasm]

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

He did it, the absolute madman

Looking forward to see how/if Hillary runs with this and how Trump reacts to ONE-TERM GEORGE's stunning endorsement.

[Figueira]

3 out of 4 living Presidents supporting you is pretty good.

4 out of 5, if you count Obama.

And Dubya isn't exactly a Trump fan, nor is he someone whose endorsement would be particularly helpful.

[Trapsy]

Thank God, I was waiting for H to direct me to choose between Trump and Clinton.

Please, don't tout this endorsement. Nonetheless, H>J>W.

[Frodo]

Now waiting on Mitt Romney & family......   

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

George W. Bush is obviously supporting Clinton, he just doesn't want to admit it.

Nor would she.

[JA]

I'd like to propose a disturbing mental exercise for everyone here.

Imagine, at some point, maybe 12-20 years from now, we, along with our adult children, might look back upon the Presidency of Donald Trump (assuming nuclear war and some other catastrophe resulting from his incompetence and narcissism is averted) and think of it as a relatively less insane period and administration than what is offered by the Republican Party of 2032 or 2036 the same way we're now looking back upon the Bush Jr. Presidency in relation to the prospects of a Trump Presidency. At the current rate of the GOP's decline into insanity and considering the potential for Trump winning this year is significantly higher than any reasonable person would want, this is not an impossible prospect...

[RosettaStoned]

  Is this supposed to scare Trump supporters? lol
 

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

While people are whinging here, Donald Trump Jr tweeting an especially abhorrent picture.

https://twitter.com/DonaldJTrumpJr/status/778016283342307328/photo/1

  Is this supposed to scare Trump supporters? lol
 

This isn't about Trump supporters. This is the biggest mistake being made around here.

[Figueira]

While people are whinging here, Donald Trump Jr tweeting an especially abhorrent picture.

https://twitter.com/DonaldJTrumpJr/status/778016283342307328/photo/1

  Is this supposed to scare Trump supporters? lol
 

This isn't about Trump supporters. This is the biggest mistake being made around here.

What is Aleppo?

[100% pro-life no matter what]

The entire Bush family is voting for Hillary.

Maybe the older Bushes, but W's generation cares a lot more about social issues, which will probably stop them.

[wolfsblood07]

It should also be noted that the Bushes would have supported Clinton over any other Republican (except Jeb) as well.

I am actually very confident they would've backed any Republican with the exception of Trump. They despise Cruz (you can find a million articles from 2015 demonstrating this) and they were still indicating their support for him behind the scenes against Trump (http://dailycaller.com/2016/03/10/ted-cruz-a-bush-by-another-name/).

No reason to pretend Trump isn't unique.

Agree.

[wolfsblood07]

The entire Bush family is voting for Hillary.

Maybe the older Bushes, but W's generation cares a lot more about social issues, which will probably stop them.

You're naive if you think the Bushes care about social issues.

W. wanted to amend the constitution to ban SSM.

[Ogre Mage]

I won't pretend this is some great endorsement, but from a historical perspective it is extraordinary.

[Negusa Nagast 🚀]

I won't pretend this is some great endorsement, but from a historical perspective it is extraordinary.

All living Presidents are united behind one candidate (well, W isn't out, but if he is forced to choose we'll know who he'll support). It really is incredible.

[Vosem]

Republicans who think that "Trumpism" will just go away after Trump loses and that the Republicans will nominate another Bush-type Republican in 2020 are deluding themselves.

I don't think Trumpism is just going to go away (and definitely not by 2020), but at the same time you've got to recognize that it's a minority of the party (disliked by the majority, incidentally), one that will not find it easy to coalesce around one candidate in the absence of Trump, and one which has a massive demographic problem in that it gets support mostly from older voters in high-mortality areas.

I don't know what is meant by "Bush-type" (I don't think a hawkish FP-oriented candidate, like Lindsey Graham, has much of a chance in the modern Republican Party, but none of the serious prospective 2020 candidates really fits that description; Cotton is the closest but he's clearly intending to compete for Trump-successor), but I think a Trumpist would need even better luck than Trump had in 2016 to win in 2020, and that after that unless they manage to actually elect a President the prospects become very grim.

I can only speak for myself, but I'd like to see a Kasich-type Republican who isn't as hawkish as the rest of the Republican party nominated in 2020. Even a populist Republican would be great unless they run a "Whites only" campaign.

That candidate wouldn't be my first choice, but I would definitely still back him in the general. (Referring to your first sentence; "populist Republican" refers to a style of rhetoric/campaigning and I judge candidates by ideology and governing/legislative record, so it could be anything from someone fantastic to someone worse than Trump).

Republicans who think that "Trumpism" will just go away after Trump loses and that the Republicans will nominate another Bush-type Republican in 2020 are deluding themselves.

I don't think Trumpism is just going to go away (and definitely not by 2020), but at the same time you've got to recognize that it's a minority of the party (disliked by the majority, incidentally), one that will not find it easy to coalesce around one candidate in the absence of Trump, and one which has a massive demographic problem in that it gets support mostly from older voters in high-mortality areas.

I don't know what is meant by "Bush-type" (I don't think a hawkish FP-oriented candidate, like Lindsey Graham, has much of a chance in the modern Republican Party, but none of the serious prospective 2020 candidates really fits that description; Cotton is the closest but he's clearly intending to compete for Trump-successor), but I think a Trumpist would need even better luck than Trump had in 2016 to win in 2020, and that after that unless they manage to actually elect a President the prospects become very grim.

This would all be true if he loses by 12, but if he loses by 2, as now looks far more likely, this isn't over.  Trump will either anoint someone or run again himself in 2020.  Assuming it's Trump, Cruz and an establishment favorite like Rubio or Ryan, that's a perfect recipe for an even 3 way split of the party and 1924 Democrats style chaos at the 2020 GOP convention.

The gist of my post was that this isn't over even if he does lose by 12, but there are serious structural issues a Trump '20 candidacy, or a different future Trumpist candidate, would have to face.

I don't think the 60% of the party that opposed him in 2016 would magically become more favorable to him after he lost to a Democratic candidate with sub-40% approval ratings. In fact, I don't think his own backers would see him particularly positively after such an event. Even if it's narrower than 2%.

The wing that backed him would still be greater than 1/3 of the party in 2016, and a candidate who could unify them would be a force; but someone who could unify the forces against them (something Rubio came much closer to doing in 2016 than people remember) would crush them everywhere except New England and maybe a few inner Deep South states.

[Indy Texas]

Republicans who think that "Trumpism" will just go away after Trump loses and that the Republicans will nominate another Bush-type Republican in 2020 are deluding themselves.

I don't think Trumpism is just going to go away (and definitely not by 2020), but at the same time you've got to recognize that it's a minority of the party (disliked by the majority, incidentally), one that will not find it easy to coalesce around one candidate in the absence of Trump, and one which has a massive demographic problem in that it gets support mostly from older voters in high-mortality areas.

I don't know what is meant by "Bush-type" (I don't think a hawkish FP-oriented candidate, like Lindsey Graham, has much of a chance in the modern Republican Party, but none of the serious prospective 2020 candidates really fits that description; Cotton is the closest but he's clearly intending to compete for Trump-successor), but I think a Trumpist would need even better luck than Trump had in 2016 to win in 2020, and that after that unless they manage to actually elect a President the prospects become very grim.

I can only speak for myself, but I'd like to see a Kasich-type Republican who isn't as hawkish as the rest of the Republican party nominated in 2020. Even a populist Republican would be great unless they run a "Whites only" campaign.

That candidate wouldn't be my first choice, but I would definitely still back him in the general. (Referring to your first sentence; "populist Republican" refers to a style of rhetoric/campaigning and I judge candidates by ideology and governing/legislative record, so it could be anything from someone fantastic to someone worse than Trump).

Republicans who think that "Trumpism" will just go away after Trump loses and that the Republicans will nominate another Bush-type Republican in 2020 are deluding themselves.

I don't think Trumpism is just going to go away (and definitely not by 2020), but at the same time you've got to recognize that it's a minority of the party (disliked by the majority, incidentally), one that will not find it easy to coalesce around one candidate in the absence of Trump, and one which has a massive demographic problem in that it gets support mostly from older voters in high-mortality areas.

I don't know what is meant by "Bush-type" (I don't think a hawkish FP-oriented candidate, like Lindsey Graham, has much of a chance in the modern Republican Party, but none of the serious prospective 2020 candidates really fits that description; Cotton is the closest but he's clearly intending to compete for Trump-successor), but I think a Trumpist would need even better luck than Trump had in 2016 to win in 2020, and that after that unless they manage to actually elect a President the prospects become very grim.

This would all be true if he loses by 12, but if he loses by 2, as now looks far more likely, this isn't over.  Trump will either anoint someone or run again himself in 2020.  Assuming it's Trump, Cruz and an establishment favorite like Rubio or Ryan, that's a perfect recipe for an even 3 way split of the party and 1924 Democrats style chaos at the 2020 GOP convention.

The gist of my post was that this isn't over even if he does lose by 12, but there are serious structural issues a Trump '20 candidacy, or a different future Trumpist candidate, would have to face.

I don't think the 60% of the party that opposed him in 2016 would magically become more favorable to him after he lost to a Democratic candidate with sub-40% approval ratings. In fact, I don't think his own backers would see him particularly positively after such an event. Even if it's narrower than 2%.

The wing that backed him would still be greater than 1/3 of the party in 2016, and a candidate who could unify them would be a force; but someone who could unify the forces against them (something Rubio came much closer to doing in 2016 than people remember) would crush them everywhere except New England and maybe a few inner Deep South states.

I think the fact that the Republican base (i.e. everyone except the super-wealthy donors and the consulting/journalist class who collectively number in the tens of thousands) is more or less okay with voting for Trump should be concerning.

The "true conservative" Evan McMullin candidacy has proven to be a complete joke, and the Libertarian ticket that consists of two Republican governors is apparently taking more votes away from Clinton than it is from Trump.

A significant portion of the Democrats have reservations about voting for Hillary, as recent polls indicate, but Republicans seem to have no qualms about voting for Trump. (His ceiling is inherently lower but his floor has held up much more strongly than hers.)

Bloggers at National Review and RedState may be saying, "This isn't what the Republican Party is!" but they can't outvote the rank-and-file voters. And if the rank-and-file voters don't decide what their party is, then what is the point?

[SATW]

It's become blatantly clear that Hillary Clinton has the better, more hawkish foreign policy.

I thought I was ready to vote for Trump, but losing a Bush (officially) to Hillary is deeply depressing.

[Figueira]

It's become blatantly clear that Hillary Clinton has the better, more hawkish foreign policy.

I thought I was ready to vote for Trump, but losing a Bush (officially) to Hillary is deeply depressing.

Better? Yes, although it was blatantly clear to anyone with an iota of intelligence, like, several years ago. More hawkish? No.