Starting to lean towards Evan McMullin for President

http://www.redstate.com/diary/benjibacker/2016/08/18/evan-mcmullin-americas-sane-choice/



I thought this was a great point.

By voting for the lesser of two (extreme) evils or voting for a candidate due to their political party, you are supporting and encouraging mediocrity in our candidates in 2016 and beyond. You’re supporting the two-party system that chose Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, the two worst presidential candidates in history. You’re supporting two candidates that could do severe damage to our country’s future.

that is a great quote. the truth is that when voters are picking the least terrible choice among the two major parties, it looks to the same to the party as though every vote is a resounding, enthusiastic choice for them. So they will continue to deliver more of the same garbage.

Since 2000 I'd rank major party presidential candidates like this (this is entirely based on campaign promises and not what they delivered):



John McCain (2008) = Hillary Clinton (2016) < Barack Obama (2012) = George Bush (2004) < John Kerry (2004) < Barack Obama (2008) < Donald Trump (2016) < Mitt Romney (2012) <<<<< George Bush (2000)



I held my nose and voted for Romney because I thought he was faking it on the rah rah military garbage and I gave him the benefit of the doubt on abortion. Bush 2000 is the best candidate most of have been able to vote for. Too bad he was full of crap and decided to police to world and invade Iraq and Afghanistan for no reason contrary to his campaign promises. I didn't vote for any of the others. Still considering Trump though both Johnson and Castle are better options.

I think it actually might be better for the country if it means Trump losing and splitting off from the GOP to form his own party and taking the crazies with him

I've been reading up on Evan McMullin and I think he has a very sound and reasonable take on many positions. It will require much further study and analysis, but I could see myself choosing to vote for him.



If the country deadlocks and neither candidate reaches the required number of electoral college votes, it is possible that Paul Ryan could choose McMullin as the next president.

BlueK wrote:
I think it actually might be better for the country if it means Trump losing and splitting off from the GOP to form his own party and taking the crazies with him

Too bad the Democrats won't similarly split with their socialist wing leaving the moderate and reasonable ones behind.



America doesn't need a third party, it's needs a four-party system.

hawkwing wrote:
I've been reading up on Evan McMullin and I think he has a very sound and reasonable take on many positions. It will require much further study and analysis, but I could see myself choosing to vote for him.



If the country deadlocks and neither candidate reaches the required number of electoral college votes, it is possible that Paul Ryan could choose McMullin as the next president.

For that to work McMullin needs to win a state. The entire House of Reps votes on it and can vote for any of the top 3 electoral vote getters. If Mcmullin doesn't win a state he won't be eligible for that.

BlueK wrote:

I've been reading up on Evan McMullin and I think he has a very sound and reasonable take on many positions. It will require much further study and analysis, but I could see myself choosing to vote for him.



If the country deadlocks and neither candidate reaches the required number of electoral college votes, it is possible that Paul Ryan could choose McMullin as the next president.

For that to work McMullin needs to win a state. The entire House of Reps votes on it and can vote for any of the top 3 electoral vote getters. If Mcmullin doesn't win a state he won't be eligible for that.

Yep, win Utah.

The real reason to vote for Evan McMullin:



https://twitter.com/justindsweeney/status/765602699022708736

hawkwing wrote:

hawkwing wrote:
I've been reading up on Evan McMullin and I think he has a very sound and reasonable take on many positions. It will require much further study and analysis, but I could see myself choosing to vote for him.



If the country deadlocks and neither candidate reaches the required number of electoral college votes, it is possible that Paul Ryan could choose McMullin as the next president.

For that to work McMullin needs to win a state. The entire House of Reps votes on it and can vote for any of the top 3 electoral vote getters. If Mcmullin doesn't win a state he won't be eligible for that.

Yep, win Utah.

I'd be happy with Trump failing to win Utah, as well as any third party getting a state. The thing is, I think Hillary ends up beating Trump in a blowout. This map based on current state by sate polls doesn't look good for Trump:



http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/2016_elections_electoral_college_map.html

BlueK wrote:

BlueK wrote:

I've been reading up on Evan McMullin and I think he has a very sound and reasonable take on many positions. It will require much further study and analysis, but I could see myself choosing to vote for him.



If the country deadlocks and neither candidate reaches the required number of electoral college votes, it is possible that Paul Ryan could choose McMullin as the next president.

For that to work McMullin needs to win a state. The entire House of Reps votes on it and can vote for any of the top 3 electoral vote getters. If Mcmullin doesn't win a state he won't be eligible for that.

Yep, win Utah.

I'd be happy with Trump failing to win Utah, as well as any third party getting a state. The thing is, I think Hillary ends up beating Trump in a blowout. This map based on current state by sate polls doesn't look good for Trump:



http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/2016_elections_electoral_college_map.html

I think you're right as well, I saw a series of polls from all the swing states that showed Clinton in the mid to upper 40s and trump in the lower 30s. Sadly I won't be too surprised to see a huge blowout win for Clinton.

All the more reason to forget Trump and vote for the candidate you like best. Trump can't win anyway. The map shows HIllary is basically at 270+ electoral votes as it is right now and I can't see a realistic shot Trump has at any of the blue states on this map other than maybe Oregon. Plus, on top of that he'd have to sweep all the tossup states. Funny to still hear some of his people talking about taking states that normally go to the dems like NY or California. Well, he's 20-30 points down in those.Something is going to have to change drastically in the current dynamics for him not to be blown out. I guess that's why he fired some people and brought some new ones on this week.

This also shows why the electoral college needs reforming. There are going to be multiple states where the "winner" of that state has well less than 50% of the popular vote. Yet that candidate will win 100% of the electoral votes from that state as if there was some unanimity behind that candidate giving them a mandate from the citizens of that state.



Proportional representation on electoral votes!



Let's put EVERY state in play.

SpiffCoug wrote:
This also shows why the electoral college needs reforming. There are going to be multiple states where the "winner" of that state has well less than 50% of the popular vote. Yet that candidate will win 100% of the electoral votes from that state as if there was some unanimity behind that candidate giving them a mandate from the citizens of that state.

Same principle helped Trump a lot in the primaries: get 30% of the votes in a large field of candidates but get almost 100% of the delegates.

In the past, at least over my lifetime, you'd typically see the presidency swing back and forth between Republican and Democrat. The citizenry wanting to go with Hillary after 8 years of Obama does not bode well for the overall direction of this country.

The only realistic way for Hillary to be defeated is for Trump to drop out of the race. Analysis shows the third party candidates are actually helping Trump more than Hillary.

BlueK wrote:
The only realistic way for Hillary to be defeated is for Trump to drop out of the race. Analysis shows the third party candidates are actually helping Trump more than Hillary.

Well considering his campaign is now scrambling to get on the ballot in Minnesota because they've forgotten to file the necessary paperwork he may have to.

Tragic how Hillary would have been so easy to beat had the GOP been smart enough to nominate a normal person instead a narcissistic psycho with the maturity and self control of a 13 year old bully in middle school.

BlueK wrote:
Tragic how Hillary would have been so easy to beat had the GOP been smart enough to nominate a normal person instead a narcissistic psycho with the maturity and self control of a 13 year old bully in middle school.

I've heard this argument a lot, and think it's pretty weak sauce. How did Trump get through the primary he had to defeat one of the "strongest" GOP fields in a long time? He certainly didn't get the nomination because the GOP wanted him, that's for sure. When Bush and Rubio can't carry FL, I have no confidence in them getting past the DNC political machine. Trump had actual people voting for him over the rest of the field, something your argument forgets. If anything, it's an indictment of the GOP and the people they've been trying to shove down our throats for the the last few decades. After the way Romney and others have been treated by the GOP, all I can do is sit back and smile. Trump is stronger than you're giving him credit for. He's a doofus, an idiot, pretty insensitive (which I enjoy) and there are millions of people I'd vote for before him. BUT, being in the swing state that I live in, I'll make sure to vote for him over Hillary.

BroncoBot wrote:

Tragic how Hillary would have been so easy to beat had the GOP been smart enough to nominate a normal person instead a narcissistic psycho with the maturity and self control of a 13 year old bully in middle school.

I've heard this argument a lot, and think it's pretty weak sauce. How did Trump get through the primary he had to defeat one of the "strongest" GOP fields in a long time? He certainly didn't get the nomination because the GOP wanted him, that's for sure. When Bush and Rubio can't carry FL, I have no confidence in them getting past the DNC political machine. Trump had actual people voting for him over the rest of the field, something your argument forgets. If anything, it's an indictment of the GOP and the people they've been trying to shove down our throats for the the last few decades. After the way Romney and others have been treated by the GOP, all I can do is sit back and smile. Trump is stronger than you're giving him credit for. He's a doofus, an idiot, pretty insensitive (which I enjoy) and there are millions of people I'd vote for before him. BUT, being in the swing state that I live in, I'll make sure to vote for him over Hillary.

Trump got thru the primary process by snookering the GOP voters. They wanted someone who would be tough on immigration and take the fight to Hillary.



Now he's flipped on his tough immigration policy and isn't going after Hillary with nearly the same gusto he went after Jeb! or Marco. So now the GOP is left with a candidate who has the same immigration position (of course there is still time for him to take an even softer stance), who isn't going after Hillary as much as they want and who is so toxic to the general election population that he has no chance at winning.



He took advantage of the stupid voters in the stupid party and will lose.