Third-party effort fizzling out

[mystery-ak]

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/279749-third-party-effort-fizzling-out

May 13, 2016, 06:03 am
Third-party effort fizzling out
By Jonathan Swan

An effort by prominent conservatives to recruit a third party candidate to run against Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton is fizzling out.

A serious third party run would cost millions, and GOP donors have so far been reluctant to embrace a bid.

No major political star has stepped forward publicly so far to be a third-party candidate either, and possible recruits, such as Mitt Romney and Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.), have ruled out doing so.
Polls also indicate that Republicans around the country are coming around to Trump now he's their presumptive nominee. A Public Policy Polling survey found Republicans are as unified around Trump as Democrats are around Clinton, with 72 percent or Republicans saying they are comfortable with him as their nominee.

Critics of Trump say the businessman’s fast-approaching victory in the primary contest — every other Republican candidate has now dropped out — also gives weight to arguments that those pushing a third-party effort are effectively ignoring GOP voters.

“I think it’s offensive to the people who have voted,” said former Romney fundraiser Lisa Spies. “They have chosen Donald Trump.

“That doesn’t mean we have to like him,” Spies added. “That doesn’t mean everybody in the party has to fall in behind him. But the voters have chosen a candidate and that means we have to respect that, period.”

While Romney and the Bush family have yet to back Trump, Speaker Paul Ryan’s (R-Wis.) actions on Thursday signaled the GOP is uniting around its candidate.

While Ryan stopped short of an endorsement after a meeting with the presumptive GOP presidential nominee, he sounded like a politician getting on board the Trump train in describing a “very encouraging” meeting.

Erick Erickson, the influential conservative pundit who founded RedState.com, believes that if no outside candidate emerges by the end of May, then the third party movement is as good as dead.

“The reason it has to be by the end of May is because once June starts the Democrat air war begins and a lot of conversation is going to begin to be drowned out,” said Erickson, who is a leading figure in the conservative movement to draft a third party candidate.

Weekly Standard editor William Kristol, another prominent face in the third-party push, sounded disappointment with Trump’s meetings with Ryan and other Republicans on Thursday.

“It is depressing as a Republican and a conservative to see Donald Trump making this triumphal procession...through Washington with the Republican leadership of the Republican National Committee and the House and Senate basically capitulating to him,” he said Thursday on MSNBC.

“Unification means capitulation,” Kristol added.

Erickson said his ad-hoc group exploring third-party options estimates it would cost at least $250 million to run a campaign.

It’s not just advertising that needs to be bought. Ballot access in all 50 states would likely require costly court action given that some deadlines, including Texas’s, have already passed.

Billionaire GOP donors on record as opposing Trump are skeptical at best about such an effort.

Hedge fund manager Paul Singer and the Ricketts family – who combined have spent at least $7 million opposing Trump – have told associates that they are theoretically open to the idea of funding a third party bid.

But privately, several GOP fundraising sources in interviews with The Hill scoffed at the idea of a third party candidate as a fevered dream of elite conservatives who are hopelessly out of touch.

Many of these donors aren’t warming to Trump, but believe the third party recruitment is an exercise in pure fantasy.

“The choice between Trump and Hillary is like choosing what type of venereal disease you would be comfortable contracting,” said a conservative donor who contributed to the biggest anti-Trump group, Our Principles PAC.

Though he “loathes” both Trump and Clinton, the donor said it was too late to launch a third party bid unless “Romney got in.”

That points to a real problem for those backing a third-party bid. They can’t get anyone to run.

“The hang up,” said Erickson, “is the candidate.”

Erickson, who stresses that these are his personal views and not those of the adhoc third party group, says he thinks that at this late hour, anti-Trump Republicans have a better shot at stopping the presumptive nominee by convincing delegates at the July Convention to unbind themselves and to vote for candidates other than Trump.

Such a scenario, however, seems to be the longest of long shots.

Polling is still being done to convince donors and potential candidates that a third party bid could succeed.

And a shortlist has drawn up of at least three “political figures” who are “still willing to consider it if everything lines up,” Erickson said.

The shortlist includes one currently elected official and two retired politicians, Erickson said.

Quin Hillyer, another leading conservative in the “Never Trump and Never Hillary” movement, told The Hill he remained “absolutely convinced” that the third party candidacy will happen.

While a handful of polls this week pointed to a possible close race between Clinton and Trump, many “never Trump” Republicans believe he will be a disaster in November would could do lasting damage to the party.

“I also wouldn’t rule out the idea that somebody might approach Mattis again,” Hillyer said, referencing retired Marine Gen. James Mathis, who has declined overtures to run.

Perhaps the most ominous sign for the third party movement occurred at a Washington dinner last Thursday evening.

More than 100 guests, including a number of prominent conservatives, gathered at The Fairmont, a tony hotel, for an award gala for American Friends of the Hebrew University.

Romney spoke. And so did Kristol, who “kept making jokes” about how he was trying to recruit the 2012 Republican nominee to run a third party bid against Clinton and Trump, a source who attended told The Hill.

“Bill kept bringing it up,” the source said.

“Everyone was laughing.”

[Jazzhead]

My dream scenario would be for Rand Paul to be recruited by the Libertarian Party.   

[ABX]

My dream scenario would be for Rand Paul to be recruited by the Libertarian Party.

Stranger things have happened. Their convention is at the end of the month and from what I read, they are on track for their first year to have ballot access in all 50 states.

[libertybele]

It's way to late in the game ... a third party run would require having enough time and money for any candidate to qualify and get on the ballot in all 50 states.  We have less than 6 months to go.  The Libertarian party so far as I know is the closest to getting on the ballot in all 50 states.  The Constitution party needs money and manpower to do so.  Our electoral system is set up so that it is virtually impossible for a third party to win and makes it very difficult for a 3rd party to even run.

However, if enough people were to vote 3rd party or write in a candidate it could very well deny both Trump and Hillary the nomination and then the burden would fall to the House.

[EC]

However, if enough people were to vote 3rd party or write in a candidate it could very well deny both Trump and Hillary the nomination and then the burden would fall to the House.

Now there's a sentence to fill you with fear. We'd probably wind up with the pizza delivery guy.

Who's still be better than either. 

I just don't believe it. 350 million people to pick from. And these things are the two candidates for Commander in Chief.

[libertybele]

My dream scenario would be for Rand Paul to be recruited by the Libertarian Party.

I like Rand but he lost his momentum by flip-flopping on some of the issues early on and wasn't in the race long enough to really gain anymore name recognition.  Ironically, Trump has flip-flopped on every issue and that doesn't seem to matter. 

My dream ticket at one time was a Cruz/Paul ticket.  They agree on a lot of issues and I think could strike harmony and balance on others. I'm not so sure though because they've already run on the presidential GOP ticket that they could now run on a 3rd party ticket.  Paul's values and ideals are more wrapped around the Libertarian party and Cruz definitely around the Republican party.  However, I think they would compliment each other very nicely.

Too late I'm afraid for a 3rd party run for either one of them.

[Relic]

Now there's a sentence to fill you with fear. We'd probably wind up with the pizza delivery guy.

Who's still be better than either. 

I just don't believe it. 350 million people to pick from. And these things are the two candidates for Commander in Chief.

You could open a phone book and pick two people at random and likely do better than the two we have.

I'm certain there are still phone books!

[libertybele]

Now there's a sentence to fill you with fear. We'd probably wind up with the pizza delivery guy.

Who's still be better than either. 

I just don't believe it. 350 million people to pick from. And these things are the two candidates for Commander in Chief.

I am 99.9% convinced that this election was nothing more than Trump dividing the GOP; eliminating conservatives and handing the White House to Hillary.  Cruz's popularity was a definite threat to the hostile takeover and that is why the Donald went so ballistic on him.

Just think of the candidates; Cruz, Paul, Perry, Walker, Huckabee, Santorum, Jindal, Carson, Fiorina, Graham, Pataki, Bush, Rubio, Christie, and Gilmore ... and we wind up with Trump.  It's sickening, but I feel, by design.

[Suppressed]

I am 99.9% convinced that this election was nothing more than Trump dividing the GOP; eliminating conservatives and handing the White House to Hillary.  Cruz's popularity was a definite threat to the hostile takeover and that is why the Donald went so ballistic on him.

Just think of the candidates; Cruz, Paul, Perry, Walker, Huckabee, Santorum, Jindal, Carson, Fiorina, Graham, Pataki, Bush, Rubio, Christie, and Gilmore ... and we wind up with Trump.  It's sickening, but I feel, by design.

I don't think it has to be by design, but it's the nature of what we'll continue to get as long as we don't have Preferential Voting or Ranked Voting or some other mechanism to stop it.

[libertybele]

Stranger things have happened. Their convention is at the end of the month and from what I read, they are on track for their first year to have ballot access in all 50 states.

Yes, in accessing their website they are slated to be on the ballot in all 50 states.  That's an accomplishment ... but the odds are still very stacked against them in obtaining enough votes to split the election and nearly impossible for them to obtain the majority.

The hopeful but real long shot of a scenario I see is this; Sanders loses to Clinton -- Sanders supporters vote 3rd party or write in Sanders.  #NeverTrump  supporters vote 3rd party or write in their preferred candidate.  Those combined votes may be enough to deny either Hillary or Trump the majority needed.  It is my understanding (and I am not an election scholar by any means) that the House would then elect the president.  They have to select the three people from each party with the highest number of votes/delegates so they would be picking from Hillary, Sanders, Trump, Cruz and Kasich.   

[Roscoe Proudfoot]

The way I see it is, I've been a registered Libertarian for almost 40 years. It's about time I voted for them no matter who they nominate   

[Right_in_Virginia]

   

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Plenty of third party candidates running.

Still on the fence about Trump. I don't think I will make up my mind until November.

[jmyrlefuller]

There already exist third parties; no need to try and form another on such short notice. Take one that already has ballot access, and support it.

That is, if you want to stop the two tyrants in waiting from ensuring one of them will be in power for the next four years.

[Doug Loss]

The hopeful but real long shot of a scenario I see is this; Sanders loses to Clinton -- Sanders supporters vote 3rd party or write in Sanders.  #NeverTrump  supporters vote 3rd party or write in their preferred candidate.  Those combined votes may be enough to deny either Hillary or Trump the majority needed.  It is my understanding (and I am not an election scholar by any means) that the House would then elect the president.  They have to select the three people from each party with the highest number of votes/delegates so they would be picking from Hillary, Sanders, Trump, Cruz and Kasich.

For that to work, at least one third-party candidate would have to win the vote in a state, outright.  That's the only way to get electoral college votes.  The last candidate to do that (IIRC) was George Wallace in 1968.

[Mechanicos]

#neverTrump is illogical. 

Every strategy, every hoped-for-goal that has been articulated by them results in either Hillary or the same Establishment destruction of America continuing unabated. Democrats start with an advantage in the general because of their free-stuff army, imported voters and massive vote fraud.

If they win at the convention, it destroys the Party and Hillary wins.
If they win with a 3rd party it splits the vote and the Democrat advantage wins in the General.
If they win at attacking Trump it depresses enough of the base and the Democrat advantage wins in the General.
If they take their ball and go home, they increase the odds of the Democrat advantage winning the general election.
If they let the Democrat win and have 4 years - we get more extreme liberal  judges and massive dilution of our population with non-America loyal people ensuring no conservative can win ever again.

There is NO good result possible from the #neverTrump agenda. None, Zilch, Nada. There is no possible path to achieving conservative objectives with #neverTrump. Every #neverTrump path leads to Hillary.

This is reality. 

[Bill Cipher]

#neverTrump is illogical. 

Every strategy, every hoped-for-goal that has been articulated by them results in either Hillary or the same Establishment destruction of America continuing unabated. Democrats start with an advantage in the general because of their free-stuff army, imported voters and massive vote fraud.

If they win at the convention, it destroys the Party and Hillary wins.
If they win with a 3rd party it splits the vote and the Democrat advantage wins in the General.
If they win at attacking Trump it depresses enough of the base and the Democrat advantage wins in the General.
If they take their ball and go home, they increase the odds of the Democrat advantage winning the general election.
If they let the Democrat win and have 4 years - we get more extreme liberal  judges and massive dilution of our population with non-America loyal people ensuring no conservative can win ever again.

There is NO good result possible from the #neverTrump agenda. None, Zilch, Nada. There is no possible path to achieving conservative objectives with #neverTrump. Every #neverTrump path leads to Hillary.

This is reality. 

#NeverTrump is principle and logic.  It's refusing to drink swill from a lying liberal just because that liberal has slapped an 'R' at the end of his name and pretended to be a republican.  It's preferring to evaluate a liar based on his past and his actual track record rather than just his own self-serving words now, words that in his own admission in his own book are "truthful hyperbole" designed to seduce people into giving him what he wants by getting them to believe he'll give them what they want. 

Donald Trump's past, his actions, and his political home base all demonstrate that he's nothing but a liberal, and his backtracking in the last week or so on all those seductive promises you swilled proves it. 

Donald Trump is a liberal.  He is, in fact, a lying crony capitalist liberal just like Hillary Clinton.  When facts are observed and rhetoric ignored, there is precious little difference between the two.

The only question is, are you going to own the continuing liberal disaster by affirmatively voting for a liberal, or are you going to grow a spine and vote for something different, even if only a minority of your fellow voters are smart enough to come along with you.

#NeverTrump
#NeverHillary

[Mesaclone]

#neverTrump is illogical. 

Every strategy, every hoped-for-goal that has been articulated by them results in either Hillary or the same Establishment destruction of America continuing unabated. Democrats start with an advantage in the general because of their free-stuff army, imported voters and massive vote fraud.

If they win at the convention, it destroys the Party and Hillary wins.
If they win with a 3rd party it splits the vote and the Democrat advantage wins in the General.
If they win at attacking Trump it depresses enough of the base and the Democrat advantage wins in the General.
If they take their ball and go home, they increase the odds of the Democrat advantage winning the general election.
If they let the Democrat win and have 4 years - we get more extreme liberal  judges and massive dilution of our population with non-America loyal people ensuring no conservative can win ever again.

There is NO good result possible from the #neverTrump agenda. None, Zilch, Nada. There is no possible path to achieving conservative objectives with #neverTrump. Every #neverTrump path leads to Hillary.

This is reality.

Mechanicos, you've shown yourself to be a bastion of common sense in a sea of madness. Keep up the excellent work here! As you've stated, the reasons you give demonstrate clearly how #NeverTrump is simply a euphemism for #AlwaysHillary.

[Bill Cipher]

Mechanicos, you've shown yourself to be a bastion of common sense in a sea of madness. Keep up the excellent work here! As you've stated, the reasons you give demonstrate clearly how #NeverTrump is simply a euphemism for #AlwaysHillary.

From one worshiper of Trump the God to another worshiper of Trump the God. 

[Mesaclone]

#NeverTrump is principle and logic.  It's refusing to drink swill from a lying liberal just because that liberal has slapped an 'R' at the end of his name and pretended to be a republican.  It's preferring to evaluate a liar based on his past and his actual track record rather than just his own self-serving words now, words that in his own admission in his own book are "truthful hyperbole" designed to seduce people into giving him what he wants by getting them to believe he'll give them what they want. 

Donald Trump's past, his actions, and his political home base all demonstrate that he's nothing but a liberal, and his backtracking in the last week or so on all those seductive promises you swilled proves it. 

Donald Trump is a liberal.  He is, in fact, a lying crony capitalist liberal just like Hillary Clinton.  When facts are observed and rhetoric ignored, there is precious little difference between the two.

The only question is, are you going to own the continuing liberal disaster by affirmatively voting for a liberal, or are you going to grow a spine and vote for something different, even if only a minority of your fellow voters are smart enough to come along with you.

#NeverTrump
#NeverHillary

Here's what you get with Trump...3-4 conservative SCJ's over the next 4-8 years. Alternatively, if by action or inaction you allow Hillary to win, you will get 3-4 Sotomayors...which means you will lose your 2nd amendment rights, your 1st amendment rights will be infringed, religious concerns will be shut out entirely from the legal system, all illegals will become citizens, and we will have 30-40 years of a Supreme Court that is on the extreme Left.

So ignore everything else and look at that one thing. I realize you will argue that you don't KNOW Trump will appoint conservative justices, even though he is going to not only put out a list of possible appointees in advance AND will be held to this by a GOP congress...but you DO know EXACTLY what Hillary will appoint. So if there is even a smidgeon of a chance that Trump will appoint preferable judges, failing to support him is tantamount to handing the court to the far Left for a generation.

No rational person can argue that there is no difference between the types of justices a Trump White House would appoint vs a Hillary White House...that's just not an argument that anyone with an ounce of common sense can justify. Simply being their party's nominee sets a tight parameter on either candidate in terms of who they can get approved through congress. Further, both have telegraphed quite plainly who they will appoint to the court, so the choice is crystal clear. All of us will be on one side or the other of that equation...there is no third alternative on this topic.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Here's what you get with Trump...3-4 conservative SCJ's over the next 4-8 years. Alternatively, if by action or inaction you allow Hillary to win, you will get 3-4 Sotomayors...which means you will lose your 2nd amendment rights, your 1st amendment rights will be infringed, religious concerns will be shut out entirely from the legal system, all illegals will become citizens, and we will have 30-40 years of a Supreme Court that is on the extreme Left.

So ignore everything else and look at that one thing. I realize you will argue that you don't KNOW Trump will appoint conservative justices, even though he is going to not only put out a list of possible appointees in advance AND will be held to this by a GOP congress...but you DO know EXACTLY what Hillary will appoint. So if there is even a smidgeon of a chance that Trump will appoint preferable judges, failing to support him is tantamount handing the court to the far Left for a generation.

No rational person can argue that there is no difference between the types of justices a Trump White House would appoint vs a Hillary White House...that's just not an argument that anyone with an ounce of common sense can justify. Both have telegraphed quite who they will appoint to the court, so the choice is crystal clear. All of us will be on one side or the other of that equation...there is no third alternative on this topic.

Understood, however some issues about Trump that make me nervous:

1) His protectionism will start a worldwide trade war. I shouldn't need to explain why this makes me nervous.
2) Trump needs to show good judgement, that he can pick competent people to run his cabinet and he should defer to those people when he's over his head.
3) I have a feeling that Trump has a "Nixonian" edge to him that could be disastrous. He's not a guy that likes to be told, no, for example.

You are right that Hillary would bring a liberal domination of the court, which should give true conservatives pause, and yet, I feel that possibly Trump can be even more disastrous in many ways. Populism on this scale, in this country, has never really been tried. I'm a little nervous about a populist "caudillo" like Trump gaining power. He has more in common with Hugo Chavez or Peron than Ronald Reagan.

As long as I have doubts about Trump, I'm not sure I can vote for him in November.

[Mesaclone]

From one worshiper of Trump the God to another worshiper of Trump the God.

I realize it fits your imaginary narrative to say such things, but it shows just how bankrupt your arguments are against those of us who support Trump. Every candidate is flawed, as they are human beings...and those of us who support Trump do so for the same reasons you support whomever you do. Making up a cult of personality is a political tactic, and a weak one at that. Anyone who could support a guy like Cruz...with the nutty "Chosen One" stuff and Beck proclaiming him to "from God"... is clearly a cashew calling a peanut a nut.

[Mechanicos]

#NeverTrump is principle and logic.  It's refusing to drink swill from a lying liberal just because that liberal has slapped an 'R' at the end of his name and pretended to be a republican.  It's preferring to evaluate a liar based on his past and his actual track record rather than just his own self-serving words now, words that in his own admission in his own book are "truthful hyperbole" designed to seduce people into giving him what he wants by getting them to believe he'll give them what they want. 

No its not. its made up of 3 parts. Liberal Billionaires, Liberal/captive presttitutes and whiny losers who are acting like petulant children throwing a tantrum because they got beat. There are no positive principles in supporting Hillary. Nor is there any logic in the outcomes of the movement since they all result in Hillary destroying America.

Donald Trump's past, his actions, and his political home base all demonstrate that he's nothing but a liberal, and his backtracking in the last week or so on all those seductive promises you swilled proves it. 

Donald Trump is a liberal.  He is, in fact, a lying crony capitalist liberal just like Hillary Clinton.  When facts are observed and rhetoric ignored, there is precious little difference between the two.

Trump is a Nationalist and is more Conservative on major National issues that directly affect our security, economy and country survival then anybody else. The problem with #always Hillary is the assumption that the never-winning social issues are what is the measuring criteria for conservatism. The Fact is NONE of the social issues you allude too as "liberal" are within the Constitutional power of the President to change. So you are pissing in the wind with a stupid Liberal Social issues argument. The only relevant aspect of all your "liberal" concerns as it relates to the office of the president is the judges appointed. And we Know what type of judges Hillary will appoint. Trump has already put up lists of conservative ones.   

The only question is, are you going to own the continuing liberal disaster by affirmatively voting for a liberal, or are you going to grow a spine and vote for something different, even if only a minority of your fellow voters are smart enough to come along with you.

The only question is are you going to stay sucked into the usual game where the left distracts you with social issues that the president has no power to change while they happily mock your defective perspective while destroying our country with open borders, crashed economy and Muslim invasions?

#NeverTrump
#NeverHillary

Logically, as I pointed out above, #neverTrump is really bad for American and has no possible positive outcome.

[jmyrlefuller]

Trump is a Nationalist and is more Conservative on major National issues that directly affect our security, economy and country survival then anybody else. The problem with #always Hillary is the assumption that the never-winning social issues are what is the measuring criteria for conservatism. The Fact is NONE of the social issues you allude too as "liberal" are within the Constitutional power of the President to change. So you are pissing in the wind with a stupid Liberal Social issues argument. The only relevant aspect of all your "liberal" concerns as it relates to the office of the president is the judges appointed. And we Know what type of judges Hillary will appoint. Trump has already put up lists of conservative ones.   

What about our freedoms? Freedom to not buy health insurance, freedom to say no to a customer without being accused of a hate crime, freedom to criticize our leaders?

Your mere presence here proves my point to those who pay attention. Those who dare oppose Donald Trump face vicious, often personal, attacks. Is that the temperament of a leader of the free world? Are we even pretending to be free anymore? Do we not even want to be a free and responsible nation?

Or is the concept of freedom too hopeless to defend anymore, Mechanicos? If so, we ought to all just die.

[Mesaclone]

What about our freedoms? They are better preserved under Trump than under Clinton. Freedom to not buy health insurance, freedom to say no to a customer without being accused of a hate crime, freedom to criticize our leaders? Again, better protected with Clinton not in the White House.

Your mere presence here proves my point to those who pay attention. Those who dare oppose Donald Trump face vicious, often personal, attacks. As do those who support him...that's the envrionment right now and its MOSTLY fostered by the NeverTrumps here. Is that the temperament of a leader of the free world? A temperament that is strong and stridently America-centric is what Trump brings. Are we even pretending to be free anymore? The fact that you are here saying what you will shows you are free...as does your attendance at church each Sunday, your owning of firearms which would mostly be lost under Clinton. Do we not even want to be a free and responsible nation? That is what we...Trump and supporters...are fighting for.

Or is the concept of freedom too hopeless to defend anymore, Mechanicos? If so, we ought to all just die.

Very "drama queen" but negligent of the facts on nearly every point. Its important to remember that all your concerns will be better addressed under Trump and GOP leadership than under Clinton. Imperfect, yes...but vastly better.