Bill Kristol: "There will be an independent candidate--an impressive one"

[Fanatical Meat]

I'm still waiting to be impressed.

 

[sportage]

Queue the white horse.
Queue the dancing monkeys.
Queue Bill Kristol.

 

[pcgeek11]

Who the hell is this French? I'm not impressed.

 

[alcoholbob]

What's this guy gonna run on, replacing the Constitution with the Statement of Principles of the Project for the New American Century? The problem with 3 of the 6 counties Kristol has advocated invading have already turned into Jihadi shitholes, do we really need to destabilize 3 more countries to somehow reach Neo-con/Neo-liberal nirvana? Just endorse Hillary already; you'll get your wars.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Then the GOP establishment can get it's candidate without having to do that whole appeal to the electorate nonsense.

You are totally wrong!

 

[cubby1223]

Of course a 3rd party candidate could win electoral votes.

Perhaps you're thinking of primary elections?

And I can win the Presidency too through write-in votes! All I have to do is believe hard enough

 

[werepossum]

The best one in modern times didn't win a single EC vote. (Perot). Some guy is going to come out of nowhere and win a state? That is fantasy. Only guy who could win a state (Utah) is Romney but it isn't him.

I dunno, if the Republican establishment goes all out, trillion plus in PAC money, with a good candidate they might win a few very conservative states, although I think it's more likely that even if they win some states, they would end up throwing enough red states to Hillary that she would win. But depending on who is speaking and when, that might be preferable to the big money. Biggest problem is that it's an anti-establishment year. How does the GOP establishment running an independent tap into that?

Smartest thing they could do from a policy standpoint would be to endorse Johnson, running on the Libertarian ticket. Problem is, that spits in the face of the Republican primary voters and would probably cost them the House and definitely the Senate. I suspect this is thunder to (A) get some specific concessions from Trump or (B) create and maintain enough Trump-hate to ensure a Hillary victory whilst holding onto at least the House.

What's this guy gonna run on, replacing the Constitution with the Statement of Principles of the Project for the New American Century? The problem with 3 of the 6 counties Kristol has advocated invading have already turned into Jihadi shitholes, do we really need to destabilize 3 more countries to somehow reach Neo-con/Neo-liberal nirvana? Just endorse Hillary already; you'll get your wars.

Sure. But what if they are Obama wars, where you turn a country into a shithole (granted, a redundent concept for these nations) but only spend tens of billions doing it? Hardly worth even investing in an Obama war.

 

[cubby1223]

I dunno, if the Republican establishment goes all out, trillion plus in PAC money, with a good candidate they might win a few very conservative states,

And their 3 electoral college votes while Hillary sweeps every state worth anything on the electoral map.

Bill Kristol is a nut, there is absolutely nothing more behind this news items.

 

[feralkid]

And I can win the Presidency too through write-in votes! All I have to do is believe hard enough

You don't seem to comprehend the meaning of the word "could".

 

[fskimospy]

I dunno, if the Republican establishment goes all out, trillion plus in PAC money, with a good candidate they might win a few very conservative states, although I think it's more likely that even if they win some states, they would end up throwing enough red states to Hillary that she would win. But depending on who is speaking and when, that might be preferable to the big money. Biggest problem is that it's an anti-establishment year. How does the GOP establishment running an independent tap into that?

Smartest thing they could do from a policy standpoint would be to endorse Johnson, running on the Libertarian ticket. Problem is, that spits in the face of the Republican primary voters and would probably cost them the House and definitely the Senate. I suspect this is thunder to (A) get some specific concessions from Trump or (B) create and maintain enough Trump-hate to ensure a Hillary victory whilst holding onto at least the House.

Sure. But what if they are Obama wars, where you turn a country into a shithole (granted, a redundent concept for these nations) but only spend tens of billions doing it? Hardly worth even investing in an Obama war.

My guess is that his hopes are to:

1. Help Republicans at least hold on to the house.
2. Watch Trump go down in flames.
3. Blame the loss on Trump's insufficiently conservative views.
4. Use the house to block any Democratic agenda as before.
5. Run a conventionally nutty, ultra far right candidate for president in 2020 based on a 'failed' Clinton term.

 

[Ken g6]

This could lead to a Republican President who's not Trump! How?

Well, suppose the candidate is Marco Rubio. Suppose Rubio wins Florida, his home state. Suppose Hillary wins a bunch of states, but not enough for a majority of the Electoral College. Also suppose Trump wins a bunch of states, but also not enough for a majority of the Electoral College.

Now what happens? Now, the Constitution says, the House votes for the President. The House is majority Republican, so they won't elect Hillary. They also tend to hate Trump. So Rubio becomes President having won only one state!

 

[cubby1223]

This could lead to a Republican President who's not Trump! How?

Well, suppose the candidate is Marco Rubio. Suppose Rubio wins Florida, his home state. Suppose Hillary wins a bunch of states, but not enough for a majority of the Electoral College. Also suppose Trump wins a bunch of states, but also not enough for a majority of the Electoral College.

Now what happens? Now, the Constitution says, the House votes for the President. The House is majority Republican, so they won't elect Hillary. They also tend to hate Trump. So Rubio becomes President having won only one state!

Rubio couldn't even win Florida during the primaries, Trump received 70% more votes than him.

Yes, we can dream up an infinite number of possible scenarios, but every single one boils down to the same end result: 1) it is very far from a plausible scenario, and 2) Bill Kristol's prediction has already been proven to be false by virtue of time passing.

 

[waggy]

you know..at t his point I want Hillary to be indicted (and stay in the race along with BS) and the GOP to put in a 3rd party in as president.

That would be the most epic clusterfuck of a election ever and won't be topped!

 

[werepossum]

My guess is that his hopes are to:

1. Help Republicans at least hold on to the house.
2. Watch Trump go down in flames.
3. Blame the loss on Trump's insufficiently conservative views.
4. Use the house to block any Democratic agenda as before.
5. Run a conventionally nutty, ultra far right candidate for president in 2020 based on a 'failed' Clinton term.

Well, yeah. But we're speculating on what they might do differently this election.

This could lead to a Republican President who's not Trump! How?

Well, suppose the candidate is Marco Rubio. Suppose Rubio wins Florida, his home state. Suppose Hillary wins a bunch of states, but not enough for a majority of the Electoral College. Also suppose Trump wins a bunch of states, but also not enough for a majority of the Electoral College.

Now what happens? Now, the Constitution says, the House votes for the President. The House is majority Republican, so they won't elect Hillary. They also tend to hate Trump. So Rubio becomes President having won only one state!

Exactly. It's a rather Rube Goldberg proposition that smart money says would end up costing them the House and the Senate, giving the Dems all three with the White House, while spending a billion dollars and alienating most Republicans and independents. Then President Hildabeast nominates some Marxist to replace Scalia, the newly Democrat Senates confirms, and we're a one-party nation.

I can't say the GOP establishment isn't that crazy, but I doubt their big money donors are.

Rubio couldn't even win Florida during the primaries, Trump received 70% more votes than him.

Yes, we can dream up an infinite number of possible scenarios, but every single one boils down to the same end result: 1) it is very far from a plausible scenario, and 2) Bill Kristol's prediction has already been proven to be false by virtue of time passing.

This is why I strongly suspect this whole thing is designed to either fatally weaken Trump or extract some concession from him. This seems almost guaranteed to give us President Hillary, and if the big money donors prefer that, they can much more easily, reliably and cheaply accomplish it with anti-Trump PACs. Hell, after the conventions they might not need to spend anything to get President Hillary.

 

[werepossum]

you know..at t his point I want Hillary to be indicted (and stay in the race along with BS) and the GOP to put in a 3rd party in as president.

That would be the most epic clusterfuck of a election ever and won't be topped!

Only if the debate commission insists that they all show up riding in the same Mini Cooper and pile out whilst playing "Sabre Dance".

This election is indeed epic. The sanest and best candidate running is arguably the dude taking a break from his job as CEO for a pot factory.

 

[cubby1223]

This is why I strongly suspect this whole thing is designed to either fatally weaken Trump or extract some concession from him. This seems almost guaranteed to give us President Hillary, and if the big money donors prefer that, they can much more easily, reliably and cheaply accomplish it with anti-Trump PACs. Hell, after the conventions they might not need to spend anything to get President Hillary.

Except we haven't even confirmed "this whole thing" is any more than one person's fantasy tweet. How can someone "strongly suspect" anything further?

 

[cubby1223]

As long as we are speculating in fantasy land, let's throw a tweet out there that Trump is naming Sanders his VP, and Sanders will be announcing his acceptance tomorrow!

 

[Fern]

I find it impossible to come up with a reasonable idea of why Kristol is touting another 3rd party candidate. Of course, injecting the concept of "reasonable" into this might be a fatal flaw.

Is it just Kristol throwing hissy fit because he personally hates Trump?

If Kristol wants to throw the election over to the House of Reps why run more Repub/conservative candidates? The Libertarian Party is already running two Republicans. Hence it looks more like he's trying to throw the election to Hillary. That doesn't make much sense.

I would think a better method to throw it into the House is fund pre-existing lefty candidates such as the Greens or Communist (who, IIRC, are really socialist) by quietly creating PACs supporting them. E.g, run pro-Green ads claiming Hillary is in the bag for Big Oil etc. and run pro Communist Party ads promising more free shiz to college students than Sanders. This way you draw EC votes away from Hillary. If the Libertarians can draw enough away from Trump, bingo, it goes to the House.

Fern

 

[sm625]

He says he doesnt like Hillary but that is clearly just a mind game. He is a neocon, and Hillary is a neocon. The two were meant for each other.

 

[werepossum]

Except we haven't even confirmed "this whole thing" is any more than one person's fantasy tweet. How can someone "strongly suspect" anything further?

Definitely more than that - I've heard several prominent Republican bomb throwers say the same thing. See below for a few links. But you have a valid point - I should have said IFF this is a real thing and not merely some scare campaign against Trump, I strongly suspect . . .

As long as we are speculating in fantasy land, let's throw a tweet out there that Trump is naming Sanders his VP, and Sanders will be announcing his acceptance tomorrow!

lol That would be awesome. Although I still can't imagine voting for Trump, any more than for Hillary.

I find it impossible to come up with a reasonable idea of why Kristol is touting another 3rd party candidate. Of course, injecting the concept of "reasonable" into this might be a fatal flaw.

Is it just Kristol throwing hissy fit because he personally hates Trump?

If Kristol wants to throw the election over to the House of Reps why run more Repub/conservative candidates? The Libertarian Party is already running two Republicans. Hence it looks more like he's trying to throw the election to Hillary. That doesn't make much sense.

I would think a better method to throw it into the House is fund pre-existing lefty candidates such as the Greens or Communist (who, IIRC, are really socialist) by quietly creating PACs supporting them. E.g, run pro-Green ads claiming Hillary is in the bag for Big Oil etc. and run pro Communist Party ads promising more free shiz to college students than Sanders. This way you draw EC votes away from Hillary. If the Libertarians can draw enough away from Trump, bingo, it goes to the House.

Fern

We may be over-thinking this. Think back on everyone you've heard talk about this and actually support it.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...04682e-1877-11e6-924d-838753295f9a_story.html

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/...-to-plot-third-party-run-against-trump-220786

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/20/us/politics/donald-trump-republican-party.html?_r=0

Bill Krystol, Erik Erickson, Mitt Romney, Rick Perry, Tom Coburn, John Kasich, David McIntosh, Bill Wichterman, Bob Fischer - all back benchers and has-beens. Those with any pretense at being significant players (Lindsay Grahamnesty, Marco Rubio) have cut way back on the anti-Trump rhetoric. Could be this whole movement is little more than a ploy to preserve their own social conservative viability within the party and the larger conservative movement, at any cost. Sabotage Trump, elect President Hillary, and declare that Trump lost because he was "insufficiently conservative". Second verse, same as the first.

For the Dems, there is zero chance they are vulnerable from the left in any significant states. A narrow majority are voting establishment, and at least some of the dissenters will hold their noses and vote Hillary. As far as the Libertarians, they are socially quite liberal. Those behind the Dump Trump movement are uniformly very socially conservative and define "real conservatism" by the amount of spittle produced by gay marriage and legalized abortion. For them, the Libertarians are also anathema.

 

[dullard]

Now what happens? Now, the Constitution says, the House votes for the President. The House is majority Republican, so they won't elect Hillary. They also tend to hate Trump. So Rubio becomes President having won only one state!

I've been curious about this particular possibility. The real question is WHO votes for the president if no one wins the electoral college?

You are correct that the house is majority Republican now. But, this house is up for reelection. The current session of the house ends Jan 3, 2017. The electoral college is on Jan 6, 2017. So it is the NEXT house that does the voting not this current 114th congress. So, theoretically it could be majority Democratic by then (unlikely but certainly possible).

The 12th amendment says the next house must vote immediately. But it also says each state gets one vote. How is that divvied? If a state has Republican and Democratic house members which one gets to vote? I assume it is a state-by-state choice, but I really don't know. What if a state doesn't have legal procedures already in place? Will this end up in court? If so, will the vote be delayed? I suspect that yes, the vote will be delayed. The 12th amendment also says how to handle a delayed vote in the House (contradicts it's requirement for an immediate vote, but who cares about contradictions in our constitution).

If the House vote is delayed past Mar 4, 2017 then the Vice President gets to pick the president (not Biden, but the next elected Vice President). The Vice President is likely to also not have enough electoral college votes in this scenario, so it gets to be selected by the Senate according to the 12th amendment. The next Senate is likely to be slightly Democratic controlled after this election (since there are a large number of Republican seats up for grabs and very few Democratic seats), but it could certainly remain in Republican control.

So, ultimately, the next president might very well come down to a narrow victory in a minor senate campaign.

 

[glenn1]

Definitely more than that - I've heard several prominent Republican bomb throwers say the same thing. See below for a few links. But you have a valid point - I should have said IFF this is a real thing and not merely some scare campaign against Trump, I strongly suspect . . .


lol That would be awesome. Although I still can't imagine voting for Trump, any more than for Hillary.


We may be over-thinking this. Think back on everyone you've heard talk about this and actually support it.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...04682e-1877-11e6-924d-838753295f9a_story.html

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/...-to-plot-third-party-run-against-trump-220786

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/20/us/politics/donald-trump-republican-party.html?_r=0

Bill Krystol, Erik Erickson, Mitt Romney, Rick Perry, Tom Coburn, John Kasich, David McIntosh, Bill Wichterman, Bob Fischer - all back benchers and has-beens. Those with any pretense at being significant players (Lindsay Grahamnesty, Marco Rubio) have cut way back on the anti-Trump rhetoric. Could be this whole movement is little more than a ploy to preserve their own social conservative viability within the party and the larger conservative movement, at any cost. Sabotage Trump, elect President Hillary, and declare that Trump lost because he was "insufficiently conservative". Second verse, same as the first.

For the Dems, there is zero chance they are vulnerable from the left in any significant states. A narrow majority are voting establishment, and at least some of the dissenters will hold their noses and vote Hillary. As far as the Libertarians, they are socially quite liberal. Those behind the Dump Trump movement are uniformly very socially conservative and define "real conservatism" by the amount of spittle produced by gay marriage and legalized abortion. For them, the Libertarians are also anathema.

Not really on the bolded. Sure, if you draw a Venn Diagram then Libertarians and liberals agree on some social issues but typically for entirely different reasons and there's plenty of areas of disagreement as well. If anything when Libertarians and liberals do agree on social issues it's more accident of circumstance than anything and just proves the "broken clock theory" that even liberals can be correct twice a day.

https://anarchistnotebook.com/2015/...s-not-socially-liberal-fiscally-conservative/

 

[Fanatical Meat]

I'm still waiting to be impressed

 

[dullard]

Not really on the bolded. Sure, if you draw a Venn Diagram then Libertarians and liberals agree on some social issues but typically for entirely different reasons and there's plenty of areas of disagreement as well.

The libertarian / liberal Venn overlap is FAR stronger than the libertarian / conservative overlap on social issues.

The second amendment is about the only really strong libertarian / conservative social overlap.

The libertarian / liberal overlap is pretty strong on expression, communication, privacy, personal relationships, abortion, crime and justice.

 

[cubby1223]

Definitely more than that - I've heard several prominent Republican bomb throwers say the same thing. See below for a few links. But you have a valid point - I should have said IFF this is a real thing and not merely some scare campaign against Trump, I strongly suspect . . .


lol That would be awesome. Although I still can't imagine voting for Trump, any more than for Hillary.


We may be over-thinking this. Think back on everyone you've heard talk about this and actually support it.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...04682e-1877-11e6-924d-838753295f9a_story.html

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/...-to-plot-third-party-run-against-trump-220786

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/20/us/politics/donald-trump-republican-party.html?_r=0

Bill Krystol, Erik Erickson, Mitt Romney, Rick Perry, Tom Coburn, John Kasich, David McIntosh, Bill Wichterman, Bob Fischer - all back benchers and has-beens. Those with any pretense at being significant players (Lindsay Grahamnesty, Marco Rubio) have cut way back on the anti-Trump rhetoric. Could be this whole movement is little more than a ploy to preserve their own social conservative viability within the party and the larger conservative movement, at any cost. Sabotage Trump, elect President Hillary, and declare that Trump lost because he was "insufficiently conservative". Second verse, same as the first.

For the Dems, there is zero chance they are vulnerable from the left in any significant states. A narrow majority are voting establishment, and at least some of the dissenters will hold their noses and vote Hillary. As far as the Libertarians, they are socially quite liberal. Those behind the Dump Trump movement are uniformly very socially conservative and define "real conservatism" by the amount of spittle produced by gay marriage and legalized abortion. For them, the Libertarians are also anathema.

Two of those articles are from back in March, and the third article is very vague and when they do have comments from anyone worth anything they all are dismissive of such a plot as basically pointless and will accomplish nothing of substance.

It's kind of interesting, but not something to be believed in. There are many on the right who don't want Trump to be the nominee. There also are many on the left who don't want Clinton to be the nominee.