Evan who?
Is Evan McMullin a 3rd-party candidate or a 53rd-party candidate?
I’ve often said I think a 3rd-party candidate or an independent candidate has a chance this year because of widespread dissatisfaction with the other two. But I’ve never thought it could be someone utterly obscure:
McMullin served as a Mormon missionary in Brazil and volunteer refugee resettlement officer in Amman, Jordan, on behalf of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. On Sept. 11, 2001, he was in training at CIA Headquarters in Langley, Virginia. He completed his training and volunteered for overseas service in the Middle East, North Africa and South Asia, spearheading counterterrorism and intelligence operations in some of the most dangerous nations, according to the group.
Once he left the CIA in 2011, McMullin went to work for Goldman Sachs in the San Francisco Bay Area and in 2013 became a senior adviser on national security issues for the House Committee on Foreign Affairs and later the chief policy director of the House Republican Conference.
McMullin is also politically conservative. I’m a conservative, too, but for any alternative candidate to not merely act as a spoiler for Trump, that candidate must be able to draw voters from both parties and the middle. That person doesn’t have to be a household word, but he or she must have some name recognition and political reputation, and ideally should be at least a bit moderate or at least not frightening to those in the middle.
I’m not looking for perfection; I’m looking for possibility. Nor is this the year for conservative purism; that ship has sailed. This is a year for finding a viable alternative to the abominable twosome we face. If we can’t do that, we must choose between those two.
This guy is being launched to steal Utah from the GOP. I can’t believe Utahans would fall for this.
In two words, “im” and “possible”. With “Nuts!” on top.
AND WHY is Johnsonnpt your obvious front runner?
“Johnson not”…
It’s been months since I last checked the rules, but isn’t it too late to get on the ballot in about half the states?
If I had to guess, this isn’t supposed to be a winning, or even competitive, nominee. Instead, for some well-known Republicans, McMullin will act as a symbol for their supposed integrity. They’ll support him and thereby keep their reputations unsullied by Trump.
For the rest of us, this is just a waste of time.
“I think a 3rd-party candidate or an independent candidate has a chance this year because of widespread dissatisfaction with the other two.”
No.
Such.
Person.
Ever.
It has also been reported that McMullin can no longer get on the ballot in 27 states, and that by this Friday that count will rise to 35 states. A third party candidate ineligible for ballot registration in 35 of 50 states? And are there people who would actually consider his announcement a serious conservative act?
As Cornhead notes above, the purpose seems to be to keep Utah out of Trump’s reach to help insure a Clinton victory. Now there’s a conservative goal for you!
The next President of the United States of America will be named either Clinton or Trump.
Any other suggestion, or the “noble quest” for someone “viable” other than those 2, barring the death of one of the above, is delusional.
Cornflour is 100% correct. By this weekend about 40 state ballots will be closed. It’s not just a waste of time it’s a pro-Hillary movement. Pretending otherwise is BS.
Can this campaign season get any weirder? Answer is probably yes. Trump drops out, Hillary drops dead, Trump drops back in, space aliens land and claim Trump’s hair as one of their own, the Illuminati reveal themselves and battle the space aliens, and we wind up with the ghost of Harold Stassen as President.
Brian Swisher,
Sweet! A wee bit o’ humor in a somewhat contentious thread.
Thanks!
Sorry Evan Old Chap. You could be the most qualified possible candidate (not saying you are), but with those looks you would not have a prayer in 21st century America–nor would you in post-JFK 20th century America for that matter.
There is no viable alternative, and the choice we have would not exist if it wernt for the previous 40 years of the running of things by the elite acting like the World Wrestling Federation deciding who wins and loses the matches…
We got what we deserve…
We deserve it for letting the left run over us since 1968 and longer…
suck it up, make your choice, and thats that…
protest moves favor the dem candidate (whether you sit it out or vote third party, you help the CPUSA backed Democrats)
The contented versus the discontented people
I have been looking at the differences between the Left and the Right of politics since 1968, when I submitted my Master’s dissertation on that subject. And my aim has been to understand WHY Leftists behave like SoBs so much of the time. How is it that implementing Leftist policies always results in harm and destruction of some sort, if not mass murder?
So my interest has been not only in Leftist claims and policies but also in their underlying psychology. I think, in fact, that it is only at the psychological level that Leftism can be understood. And, in that, I find myself in a degree of agreement with Leftist psychologists. Leftists never stop offering accounts of the psychology of conservatives, adverse accounts, of course. It is one of the more popular fields of research in psychology. So Leftists are most emphatic that you need to delve into the psychological realm to understand politics. In any argument on the facts they will be defeated by conservatives so impugning the motives of their opponent is essentially all that they have left.
I am VERY familiar with the Leftist claims in that regard. Most of my 200+ academic journal articles were devoted to showing that the research they relied on in support of their claims was flawed, often hilariously so.
But there was one redeeming feature in their research. In purporting to decribe conservatives they usually were quite clearly describing themselves! An accusation that they never seem able to let go of, despite much contrary evidence, is that conservatives are “authoritarian”. Yet what could be more authoritarian than wanting to “fundamentally transform” America? (In Mr Obama’s words — words which elicited an enormous cheer from his Leftist audience).
So to find out what is true of Leftists, a good first approximation is to look at what they say about conservatives. They do Freudian projection on a grand scale. Real self-insight is beyond them. Their motivations are so dismal that they can’t afford to acknowledge what they really are. They can only project it onto others.
But before you study a thing you have to define it and that can be tricky. Conservatives themselves offer many different accounts of what is meant by conservatism and its opposite. The different accounts usually have a lot in common but none seem to me to strike at the heart of the Right/Left divide.
So I want to offer what is my simplest yet definition of the difference between the two camps. I propose that the Left/Right divide consists of the discontented versus the contented people. But the difference is a difference between characteristic mood rather than an invariable divide. All the surveys show that conservatives are happier than Leftists but that does not mean that they are ALWAYS happy. That would be absurd. And Trump supporters are clearly not content with the present Left-dominated state of politics, with its pervasive strictures of political correctness greatly limiting what everyone can say and do.
So conservatives have a DISPOSITION, presumably with genetic roots, to be happy and contented, whereas Leftists can’t help finding things to be discontented about. One must rather pity them.
Exactly WHAT Leftists get discontented about will obviously vary. There seem to be few things they are contented with and some of their discontents are quite amazing. At the moment, for instance, they want to tear down most of America’s electricity infrastructure in the name of the absurd global warming theory, a theory that is in constant divergence from reality.
So, basically, Leftists are discontented with EVERYTHING and, in consequence, want to tear down as much of the existing state of affairs as they can. The harm and destruction that flows from their policies is INTENDED.
One of the more nauseous discontents among Leftists is discontent with their personal fame and prestige. They have a very high opinion of themselves and are greatly grieved that the world at large does not have a similar opinion of them. So they lash out in all sorts of ways. Academics are particularly prone to that. They have in fact by their employment reached a small degree of personal distinction but are quite burned up that many business people get paid far more than they do.
So they lash out at society by promulgating fanciful theories about the evils of the world that will get them taken seriously at least by other Leftists. They gain distinction by being seen by some as heroic critics of a world in vast need of reform and reorientation.
The global warming theory is a good example of that. It’s intellectual underpinnings are pure speculation but it has succeeded in creating great disruption. And it continues to be taken seriously because a relatively small clique of scientists continue to proclaim it energetically. The famous “97%” paper by John Cook in fact shows, if you read it carefully, that only one third of climate scientists voice support for the theory.
So, because of their miserable psychological state, Leftists have great potential to do harm and we should never forget that, regardless of what face they put on it, their AIM is to do harm, harm that will usually affect us all in one way or another. Their claims of “compassion” are no more than necessary camouflage for their destructive intentions.
Yeah, I figured that out in college. Choices: (1) be wretched and discontented all the time with the way things are or (2) accept that utopia doesn’t exist and live a happy life.
The deadline for printing & mailing the overseas/military ballots has to be getting close, so it is logical that the registration time period is closing.
In addition to a lot of states closing their ballot registration, there are some (like Oklahoma) which do not allow write in voting.
Our voting system is a fill in the circle type of paper ballot and then we scan it into a reader. It would be hard to figure out the variety of written in names.
“We deserve it for letting the left run over us since 1968 and longer…”
Eh?
Look, we lost two elections (2008 and 2012). The 90s were also hard. But ask a leftist in 2005 if they felt they were winning.
If I recall, Reagan was President from 1980 to 1988.
Trump supporters often seem to me to be really trying to paint a horrific picture of the state of conservatism in order to boost the idea that their guy (who is, ironically, not very conservative) is our last, best hope.
I get it – the Republicans haven’t covered themselves in glory. But guys like Hannity, guys who have sold their souls to the Donald, complain that Republicans didn’t overturn Obamacare.
How on earth were they EVER supposed to get past the Obama veto? Answer – there was no way they could. What did we expect? Republicans should have made a better case in 2012. Just like they should have nominated someone (anyone!) other than Trump this time around. Not for nothing is the GOP called the stupid party.
I would love to have a viable third party candidate to vote for. But I’m amazed that conservatives keep trotting out guys like David French and this new guy. Maybe very worthy people, but no one knows who they are.
I’ll probably vote Constitution party this time around. *sigh*
I’m hoping Trump is a black swan, not a variable to make regular future predictions of politics.
At this moment, I would hate to see a conservative 3rd-party movement result in a solid victory for Clinton.
There won’t be any replacement unless Trump willingly drops out, then endorses the replacement. Both unlikely events.
In which case, we’re tied to the Trump train as it goes over the ravine. His supporters (whose votes we need against Hillary) will accept no other outcomes than victory or disaster.
The sad thing is watching them lash out online, as if they will have a shred of credibility after a probable landslide loss. If Trump loses by a greater margin than either Romney (4%) or McCain (7%), what can Trump be but a greater “loser” than either one?
The threats of replacing Cruz have already started flying, none the less.
I watched Jill Stein on C-SPAN today. Interesting. She identifies all our problems correctly. Then she steals Bernie Sanders positions as the solution only a bit more leftist. I think she attracts lots of Bernie voters if she ever gets any media attention to get her message out.
Even if Evan gets on enough ballots, will the media give him any coverage? Where will the money come from to get his message out? Don’t think he’s viable at all. Not voting for him. Wouldn’t be prudent. 🙂
Brian Swisher: Ha, comic relief is much appreciated. ROFLMAO.
Apparently there are some who will not give up hoping for a (dead on arrival) “viable” third party candidate until November 7.
I’d rather entrust the government of the United States to the first 400 people listed in the Boston telephone directory than to the faculty of Harvard University. William F. Buckley, Jr.
Read more at: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/w/williamfb400600.html
I might substitute a good ol’ Texas town (NOT Austin or Houston), but the sentiment is the same.
At this stage we could probably pick a random citizen off the street and get better presidential material.
Artfldgr Says:
August 8th, 2016 at 4:24 pm
The contented versus the discontented people
I have been looking at the differences between the Left and the Right of politics since 1968, when I submitted my Master’s dissertation on that subject. And my aim has been to understand WHY Leftists behave like SoBs so much of the time. How is it that implementing Leftist policies always results in harm and destruction of some sort, if not mass murder? ..
* * *
Very cogent, and probably on target.
There is more than a little admixture, though, of Heinlein’s dichotomy: there are people who don’t want to control other people, and people who do. You find them on the Left and on the Right.
Discontented Controllers are the activists who end up in charge because they have the motivation to stir things up and beat down the majority of Contented Non-controllers.
The other two factions go along for the ride (or, are taken for a ride).
Participatory politics subsume electoral politics.
For conservatives, the principal objective within the 2016 election, more important than winning the proximate election, ought to be conscientiously using the election as a formative step to establish a permanent competitively sufficient social activist movement that can begin an activist conservative insurgency in earnest.
While Neo’s sketch of a higher profile candidate with crossover appeal would be more suitable for the proximate election and long-term movement objectives, such a qualified candidate is not strictly necessary for the campaign to be a suitable vehicle for establishing a competitively sufficient social activist movement.
In fact, a more obscure candidate, eg, Obama the 1st time, would compel conservatives to work harder rather than take a famous candidate for granted, which makes for a stronger social activist movement.
A good-enough candidate to front the activist building project is good enough since the center of gravity would not be the candidate but rather the collective gathering, organizing, and competitive activity of conservative dissidents.
McMullin fits the bill as good enough. More significantly, no one better has stepped up to strive in the arena. At this point, he’s the only set piece for conservatives to build their social activist movement within the critical shrinking window of opportunity.
As an underdog insurgent activist starting with limited means, get used to imperfect opportunities. The only way to grow your movement to strong means is to seize imperfect opportunities, and do the best you can with what you have to work with. Then you grow using what you’ve grown. Competing in the activist game is iterative and progressive. Opportunities multiply as they are seized.
JJ:
“Don’t think he’s viable at all. Not voting for him.”
You don’t need to vote for him. But if you wish for conservatives to become competitive in the activist game – the only social cultural/political game there is – then you should campaign for him with the purpose and plan of using the campaign to develop foundational building blocks for stepping stone for the viable social activist movement that’s necessary to compete for real.
The more I think about this Evan clown the madder I get. He’s being put up to run by the likes of establishment Republicans in order to dupe enough voters so that Trump loses. As noted above, he will be lucky to get on the ballot in a dozen states. This is all disgusting.
Cornhead,
If Trump loses, it won’t be because of Evan. He’s not Perot ’92 or even Nader ‘2000. This is a non-story.
If Trump loses it will be because he didn’t convince enough people to vote for him. Period.
On a side note, I remain somewhat amazed that some viable conservative candidate (someone with actual governing experience who has name recognition) hasn’t emerged. These Even Whatsit/David French types, while probably worthy people, aren’t even going to make a ripple.
Republicans that would have voted for Clinton now have a conservative choice. Clinton ends up losing votes. This is a net positive for trump.
Bill:
“On a side note, I remain somewhat amazed that some viable conservative candidate (someone with actual governing experience who has name recognition) hasn’t emerged. These Even Whatsit/David French types, while probably worthy people, aren’t even going to make a ripple.”
The “ripple” depends on conservatives collectively, rather than the candidate up front.
The fundamental flaw of conservatives as social political competitors is their aversion to activism, which has limited their electoral political outlook to the Magical Messiah candidate mindset.
While the profile of the candidate is (obviously) a significant piece, the center of gravity for the social competition of electoral politics is the social activist movement rather than the man or woman up front. Clinton and Trump are both deeply flawed candidates whose campaigns are being carried by their respective associated social activist movements.
Romney’s loss in 2012 showed that an eminently qualified candidate lacking a sufficient associated social activist movement is not enough to defeat a flawed candidate carried by a sufficient social activist movement.
The lesson conservatives should have learned from the 2012 election, but seemingly have yet to learn due to their aversion to activism, even with the clearest possible lesson from the 2016 GOP primary race, is that the principal factor for either a high-profile Romney type or “Even Whatsit/David French types” to “make a ripple” is less the candidate but foremost whether conservatives collectively compete sufficiently as activists.
Is McMullin’s candidacy quixotic in terms of winning the 2016 election? Of course.
But most likely, while better profiled, a Sasse type or even a Romney type as 3rd option would have been unlikely to win due to the lack of the fundamental competitive piece: a sufficient associated conservative social activist movement that would jump the curve by competing aggressively versus the Democrat-front Left and Trump-front alt-Right throughout the arena.
A higher profile candidate as 3rd option would have given conservatives yet another excuse to preserve their aversion to activism, which would have doomed the campaign anyway.
Because McMullin lacks a high profile and he’s a severe underdog lacking traditional strengths throughout his campaign (such as it is), his candidacy offers conservatives no excuse and, as such, provides an invaluable training opportunity for conservatives to overcome their crippling aversion to activism.
Any “ripple” by McMullin’s candidacy wholly depends on conservatives collectively gathering, organizing, striding into the arena as rising activists, and competing unfettered against superior Democrat-front Left and Trump-front alt-Right activists. The quixotic nature of his candidacy should negate the fear of failure and thus ease the way for conservatives to be aggressive against superior competition and check off the full book of beginner’s mistakes that will boost their training as activists.
Conservatives should be thankful that McMullin has set up for them a critical invaluable formative training opportunity for conservative insurgents to learn to compete from the ground up by grappling head on with varsity Democrat-front Left activists and “jayvee” Left-mimicking Trump-front alt-Right activists, and in the process, lay the foundation to grow a permanent sufficiently competitive social activist movement.
Right on, Bill at 4:56. You went on to wonder why a viable conservative alternative hasn’t emerged. I suspect that the primary season was even more damaging than it appeared on the surface. There were viable conservative candidates running and they gained no traction. They were shouted down by those who admire bombast. So, if they re-entered they would just be seen as “recycled failures”. I assume any additional possibile candidates simply did not want to descend into the mud puddle–or else did not have the requisite belly fire.
It is amusing at one level, and annoying at another, to now hear comments that if Trump loses it will be the fault of anyone other than Trump. Some pundit lamented that the GOP establishment has not embraced “their candidate”. I would lament that the candidate has not embraced the party that nominated him–or anyone else outside of his own skin or kin. The operative question to this point is, “has there ever been a more dysfunctional campaign by a major party candidate?”.
Ann Althouse has a comment today about an article a journalist wrote about journalists “crossing the line” in media support of Hillary. I think it adds to the discussion.
“But he had 16 rivals, and they were all, in sequence, attacking him. Even if he got 6 times as much as his closest rival (presumably Ted Cruz), what was the total amount his 16 rivals got as they all chose the strategy of hitting him? And what about the Democrats who got free media to attack him? I don’t have enough numbers to do the math, but it sounds as though more free media was used attacking him than he himself received…. The balance has gone against Trump from Day 1. How the hell did he fight through all of that?”
Eric, my time is much better spent working for candidates in my state. They have a much more immediate effect on my life. One has to pick one’s battles.
The Presidential campaign is a waste of most people’s time. Clinton has the media, Hollywood, blacks, LGBTs, the GOP establishment, and Latinos in her corner. If she wasn’t such an abysmal candidate, there would be no doubt as to the outcome. Outside events, such as terror attacks, financial glitches, and foreign affairs screw ups in the next two months, are going to have a great bearing on the outcome. IMO, it’s out of our hands.
TRUMP OCTOBER SURPRISE WATCH
http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2016/08/09/trump-ally-i-m-in-touch-with-wikileaks.html?via=desktop&source=copyurl
Donald Trump ally and former campaign strategist Roger Stone claims he is in contact with WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange. During a Republican conference Monday evening in Florida, the long-time Republican operative revealed: “I actually have communicated with Assange. I believe the next tranche of his documents pertain to the Clinton Foundation but there’s no telling what the October surprise may be.”
Well, shoot. The cat is out of the bag.
Oldflyer, @ August 9th, 2016 at 12:16 pm:
I agree with both points.
Also-rans are already tainted, so they won’t re-emerge.
Many Trump supporters EXPLICITLY said their main goal was to destroy the GOP. Now, they’re pretending to be offended that the party is resisting its own destruction.
Well, either pretending or they’re idiots.
I am still trying to figure out what ERIC means by “activist”? Tea Party experience – about a third in favor of Trump, largely those who did not participate in 2012 or 2014 elections. Or local ones. With one exception, they now sit on their hands thinking it is duty of the rest of us to work our asses off as we did in previous elections while taking their sneers at our candidates. I may drag my conscience blindfolded to the polls and vote for Trump, but no money and no work – no GOTV, no discussions. I can’t sell what I don’t believe in.
Also I am ready to start on a new party next meeting. With any luck we can co-op some participants who have been frozen out of the Republican party by its current “owners”. If we lose elections, we are no worse off than we are now. But the Republican party may be. I’ll thank the Trumpsters for that at least, but I don”t think it will make them happy.
Bush started Fast & Furious, .. GOP is stuck in the weapons-out-drugs-in business plan. The desperation of putting this guy forward is a sign of their addiction. Pretty bad, lol, …. didn’t the huge Malaysia money laundering thing come out of GS / San Francisco? .. I’m looking up dates, etc. Either way, he’s obviously just a tool.