Evan McMullin

[1972Shocker]

According to a new poll by Emerson College (can't vouch for the quality of this poll) Evan McMullin has pulled into the lead in Utah.

McMullin 31%, Trump 27%, Clinton 24% with a 3.9% margin of error.

http://www.sltrib.com/news/4485415-155/evan-mcmullin-takes-the-lead-in

Starting to pick up endorsements from state-level Utah Rebublicans.

Utah has only 6 electoral college votes and has typicallly been a slam-dunk deposit into the account of the Republican candidate.

[wu_shizzle]

How great would it be for McMullin and Johnson to win enough states to keep Hillary and Trump from 270 electoral votes?

#maketheelectoralcollegegreatagain

[shockmonster]

Not a surprise that McMullin makes a move in Utah. He was born there, went to BYU, is a Mormon, etc. it would be a surprise for him to do anything anywhere else.

[jdshock]

Not a surprise that McMullin makes a move in Utah. He was born there, went to BYU, is a Mormon, etc. it would be a surprise for him to do anything anywhere else.

Honestly, McMullin supporters can't really root for him to do super well outside of Utah. The ideal scenario is that he gets in the top 3, but he doesn't take enough votes away from Trump in Republican-leaning or battleground states that Clinton snags a victory.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

Utah is Trump's loss, not Hillary's. It gives McMullin the needed electoral votes to be eligible to receive consideration by the House, but that is pointless unless Hillary is held below 270. Without Trump making some shocking run and stealing back a couple of Floridas, Ohios, Pennsylvanias, etc, Utah won't matter.

At this point I'm conceding the White House to Hillary, but voting McMullin because it starts the process of pushing for better candidates in future elections by showing that people like Trump will fall flat. Trump doesn't just need to lose. He needs to get embarrassed.

[shockmonster]

At this point I'm conceding the White House to Hillary, but voting McMullin because it starts the process of pushing for better candidates in future elections by showing that people like Trump will fall flat. Trump doesn't just need to lose. He needs to get embarrassed.

I don't see the Republican Party to unite and rally around one candidate. GOP had some good candidates in the Primary but are so divided, I don't see Trump supporters uniting behind one. They just want to crash the system and other Republicans want to keep the system to some extent. There hasn't been unity since Bush was elected. McCain, Romney, and Trump didn't unite the base. Neither would have Cruz, Paul, or Kasich. I thought that Rubio may create unity, but that couldn't be done either. Compromise is a dirty word and that is required to unify.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

I don't see the Republican Party to unite and rally around one candidate. GOP had some good candidates in the Primary but are so divided, I don't see Trump supporters uniting behind one. They just want to crash the system and other Republicans want to keep the system to some extent. There hasn't been unity since Bush was elected. McCain, Romney, and Trump didn't unite the base. Neither would have Cruz, Paul, or Kasich. I thought that Rubio may create unity, but that couldn't be done either. Compromise is a dirty word and that is required to unify.

I think you've fallen for the Rush/Hannity/Levin/etc. lie that McCain and Romney didn't unite the base.

Candidate	% of R vote	% of "Conservative" vote
12 Romney	93	82
08 McCain	90	78
04 Bush	93	84
00 Bush	91	82
96 Dole	81	72
92 Bush	73	64

Romney and McCain both did excellent among registered republicans and self identified conservatives. I'm not saying every Mark Levin clone was thrilled with them, but they sure didn't go vote for Obama. And no, they didn't stay home in massive numbers either. That's another myth.

Romney and McCain lost because Obama brought our huge turnout among Dems, and he also appealed to a lot of moderates with his Hope and Change positive message. In a lot of ways, Bush got lucky to face Gore/Kerry. Neither of those guys had a fraction of Obama's charisma and appeal. Honestly, I bet Romney would have been a 2 term President if he was the nominee in 00 and 04. I bet Bush would have lot in 08 or 12. It's not *only* about your candidate. It is also about who they are matched up with.

Trump will get crushed because he scares off so many people from so many demographics. At this point, you could pretty much run Hitler and get 35% as an R or a D. The floor for each party is very high.

Cruz might have had a chance vs Hillary because he would have pulled in nearly every single Trump voter of today, plus a few more Hillary haters like myself who could have at least stomached to vote for him (unlike Trump who I would never vote for)

Rubio would have killed Clinton. Rush/Hannity/Levin would all be emphatically supporting him vs the Hildabeast, moderates with even the slightest distaste for the Clintons would have found Rubio acceptable, and only the hardcore libs would have remained as opposition. It is really depressing to think about what could have been. Likely a Republican Congress + an extremely honorable young Republican president. We would all be laughing at the infighting between Bernie and Hillary supporters over where to take the remnants of the Democrat Party moving forward.

Don't let disunity in the primaries confuse you with disunity in the general. Anyone but Trump would have had an easy time uniting the base against Hillary. And yet, Trump is who the voters selected. Idiots.

[jdshock]

only the hardcore libs would have remained as opposition... We would all be laughing at the infighting between Bernie and Hillary supporters over where to take the remnants of the Democrat Party moving forward.

Plus, it's incredibly tough to know how much higher voter turnout will be from the extreme liberals since Trump is the candidate instead of someone like Rubio. There were tons of Bernie or Bust folks that are going to hold their noses and vote for Clinton because they think Trump is just that bad. A more sensible republican and I think you'd see the extreme liberals less likely to show up or more likely to vote third party.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

Plus, it's incredibly tough to know how much higher voter turnout will be from the extreme liberals since Trump is the candidate instead of someone like Rubio. There were tons of Bernie or Bust folks that are going to hold their noses and vote for Clinton because they think Trump is just that bad. A more sensible republican and I think you'd see the extreme liberals less likely to show up or more likely to vote third party.

Spot on. Trump will lose in a landslide. Rubio would have won in a landslide. It is amazing how much history will eventually show hinged on the Gang of 8 legislation that didn't even pass. That, and maybe a stupidly overemphasized "Rubio repeated himself" line of attack that shows just how easily some voters are influenced by the dumbest of things.

[Cdizzle]

Plus, it's incredibly tough to know how much higher voter turnout will be from the extreme liberals since Trump is the candidate instead of someone like Rubio. There were tons of Bernie or Bust folks that are going to hold their noses and vote for Clinton because they think Trump is just that bad. A more sensible republican and I think you'd see the extreme liberals less likely to show up or more likely to vote third party.

If you were 'Bernie or Bust' and you're voting for Clinton, you weren't 'Bernie or Bust.' Big part of the problem right now. People talk a big ideological talk, and then just vote a color anyway.

[Play Angry]

George W. Bush received 44% support from Hispanic voters in 2004. He also received 11% support from black voters and 43% from Asian voters.

It might be a decade or two before we see that level of support from minorities again thanks in large part to the tone and policy of this cycle barring a massive realignment of the Republican coalition. This wouldn't be such a big deal, however, if those same groups' share of the electorate weren't irreversibly surging - non-Hispanic whites are projected to compose less than 50% of the U.S. by 2044 (down from 69% today).

Republican primary voters made the worst choice, at the worst possible time from a long-term standpoint for their party. Trump is likely to lock in results comparable to Romney, GWB, etc. among whites (~60%), but this is shaping up to be another landslide because our party seems unable to figure out that benchmark is no longer sufficient for victory and will become exponentially less so going forward.

I've harped on this repeatedly here so I won't go into further detail, but Republicans must come up with a totally different message in future elections to have any chance at continued national viability. The Trump strategy is absolutely suicidal.

[1972Shocker]

Nate Silver was on the Late Show Live with Stephen Colbert last night immediately following the debates. His take was that Trump was like a football team trailing by 10 points and then through an interception for a pick six. That's just one man's opinion.

However, the funny thing was when Nate Silver mentioned Evan McMullin's position in Utah. Colbert asked with a bewildered look "So he is running for President in Utah?" What's his name? Evan McMullin." At which point Colbert scribbles his name on a note pad. Then Colbert say "So there's a guy in Utah who might win the electoral votes in Utah?" Even Nate Silver didn't seem to know much about McMullin.

The funny thing is that Colbert and his ilk where leading the charge in trashing Gary Johnson on his "Allepo" gaffe. As Gary Johnson say's about our Middle East foreign policy -- you can't make this stuff up.

The moral of the story is if you want cutting edge political commentary don't go to Colbert, Maher, Kimmel, etc. Check out Shockernet instead.

http://digg.com/video/nate-silver-trump-debate-colbert

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

If you were 'Bernie or Bust' and you're voting for Clinton, you weren't 'Bernie or Bust.' Big part of the problem right now. People talk a big ideological talk, and then just vote a color anyway.

To be fair, if I were a Bernie fan, I'd have second thoughts about how far I was willing to go with my Bernie fandom if it meant possibly letting Trump in the White House.

@jdshock is right. A less scary guy like Rubio would allow many, many more Bernie fans to remain anti-Hillary all the way through Nov 8.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

but Republicans must come up with a totally different message in future elections to have any chance at continued national viability. The Trump strategy is absolutely suicidal.

I agree it must be totally different than Trump, but not totally different than what many are currently trying. Just as you say you have harped on this topic repeatedly, I've probably harped on Rubio being the answer to the R's problems. Good conservative policies, honest and likeable guy, not a Trump sleeze, not a Cruz enemy maker, and smart enough to just present conservatism in an optimistic manner. I really think that is all that is needed.

[Play Angry]

I agree it must be totally different than Trump, but not totally different than what many are currently trying. Just as you say you have harped on this topic repeatedly, I've probably harped on Rubio being the answer to the R's problems. Good conservative policies, honest and likeable guy, not a Trump sleeze, not a Cruz enemy maker, and smart enough to just present conservatism in an optimistic manner. I really think that is all that is needed.

I generally agree, but I am not looking forward to the uphill climb faced with young voters and certain other demographics after this election. I think a lot of folks who may have been willing to vote for a Rubio-type candidate this cycle will be tough to deliver for a while because of the Trump stench.

I also don't think the Breitbart/Trump branch of the party will go quietly into the night. The civil war in the GOP is going to (continue to) be painful IMO.