Donald Trump

Mike Crapo Withdraws Trump Endorsement After Mike Lee Calls on the Nominee to 'Step Aside' and Jeff Flake Says 'America Deserves Far Better' (UPDATED)

Elected Mormons lead the GOP charge against the Republican presidential nominee, while Gary Johnson redoubles focus on a defecting Utah.


Sen. Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), has just withdrawn his endorsement of Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump.

Crapo, one of five Republican Mormons in the U.S. Senate, made his announcement the morning after two of the others, Sens. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) and Mike Lee (R-Utah), took to social media to their disgust with Trump's "grab-them-by-the-pussy" tape. First there was Flake, on Twitter:

Then Lee, after Trump released his grumpy video apology, made this video on Facebook:

Lee's call for Trump to step aside capped a dramatic evening of defections for Utah Republicans. Gov. Gary Herbert pinned this Tweet to the top of his feed:

Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Orem), who as chairman of the House Oversight & Government Reform Committee has been no friend to Hillary Clinton, was all over television last night repeating the same two-word withdrawal of his prior Trump endorsement: "I'm out."

Also pulling his support was Rep. Chris Stewart (R-Salt Lake City): "I'm incredibly disappointed in our party's candidate. And unlike the Democrats who have proven completely unwilling to hold secretary Clinton accountable for her illegal activities that endangered our national security, I am willing to hold Mr. Trump accountable. I am therefore calling for him to step aside and to allow Mike Pence to lead our party."

Mia Love (R-Salt Lake City), a rising GOP star who has pointedly refused to endorse Trump, called the video "disappointing and disgusting." Former Utah governor and 2012 presidential aspirant Jon Huntsman, who had previously endorsed Trump, called on the Republican nominee to drop out. Other elected Mormon Republicans to blast (though not quite renounce) Trump in the wake of the video include Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), and Rep. Cresent Hardy (R-Nevada). UPDATE: Hardy, today: ""I will no longer support the guy at the head of the ticket."

Mormon distaste for Donald Trump is a well-observed phenomenon; I took a stab at the topic six weeks ago, and have written previously on the reticence of constitutional conservatives Flake and Lee (including a Republican National Convention interview with the latter). And as I mentioned in a post yesterday about Libertarian nominee Gary Johnson beating the major-party point spread in 18 states, heavily Mormon Utah has featured by far the biggest narrowing of the 2012 partisan gap of any state this year.

Mitt Romney won Utah by 48 percentage points four years ago, within range of George W. Bush's 46 (2004) and 41 (2000), plus Ronald Reagan's 50 (1984) and 52 (1980). This year, FiveThirtyEight has Trump's lead at just 18 percentage points, 52.7 percent to Clinton's 43.5, with Johnson at a strong 10.7. The last time the state was remotely this close was during Ross Perot's runs at the presidency (he came in second there in 1992).

But I would bet a stack of Book of Mormon tickets that Donald Trump won't get anywhere near 50 percent of the vote in Utah. Why? Because it's damn near impossible to find a Utah poll in which the Republican gets even 40 percent of the vote when there are more than two names on the ballot, let alone four (such as Brigham Young University grad Evan McMullin) or five (Jill Stein). Here are the three most recent state polls with four or more names on the ballot ("DC" = Darrell Castle, "OT" is other, and "UN" undecided):

DT 34% HC 25% GJ 13% EM 12% JS 1% OT 8% UN 8% (Sept. 12-19 Tribune-Hinckley)

DT 39% HC 24% GJ 13% EM 12% JS 0% DC 2% OT 6% UN 7% (Sept. 1-9 Tribune-Hinckley)

DT 39% HC 24% GJ 12% EM 9% JS 1% DC 2% UN 14% (Aug. 19-21 PPP)

Even Google Consumer Surveys, which only include three candidates, haven't registered Trump above 35 percent since August. And all campaign long, Utah has led the country in Undecideds and Others.

The Gary Johnson campaign, which is headquartered in Utah, sent an email to supporters last night saying, "If we win critical states like New Mexico, New Hampshire, and Utah, we can stop [Trump or Clinton] from getting to the critical 270 electoral votes that either of them needs to win the election….We will be publicizing our winning strategy soon."

And in a Facebook post last night, the former New Mexico governor said:

I'm shocked by these revelations about Donald Trump, but is anyone really surprised? It is just sad and embarrassing that a man who is now the nominee of a major party for President could display such a disgusting attitude toward women. America deserves better. Women deserve better, and our daughters deserve better.

Tonight, millions of Republicans are facing a moment of truth. As a former Republican Governor, I don't envy them.

According to the Pew Research Center, the states with the highest percentage of Mormons are Utah (55 percent), then Idaho (19), Wyoming (9), Arizona and Alaska (5), then Nevada and Oregon and Montana (4). Montana, Alaska, and Wyoming were the second, third, and fourth-best states for Johnson in 2012, respectively. Arizona and Nevada are ranked second and third, respectively, on the list of states where the Libertarian is exceeding the margin between the leading two presidential candidates. As the preference cascade, first of Mormon Republicans, then some of the rest, continues to wash over the election, you can be damned sure that the Libertarian Party, as well as McMullin, will be targeting the Mormon-heavy interior West.

NEXT: New Trump (and Clinton!) Revelations Make Airtight Case for More Options for President

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Trump will easily win Utah

    1. Start working at home with Google! It's by-far the best job I've had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this - 4 weeks past. I began this 6-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $98 per hour. Vist this web and go to Tech tab for more info... http://www.Trends88.Com

  2. "Mike Crapo"? How is Trump's twitter guy supposed to work with that?

    1. By stomping his feet and saying "We didnt want your crappo endorsements anyway!"

    2. His last name is Crap-O. Sad!

      1. His family changed the name. It used to Shitto. (with apologies to Mel Brooks).

        Actually, Crapo has been a decent senator up until this year. In 2015 he got a perfect score from Freedomworks (same as Rand Paul and Mike Lee). This year he's only at 67% based of a small number of votes.

        1. Indicted in 2014 for paying crapola.

  3. Russia threatens to shoot down our planes if we follow a policy Hillary Clinton advocates while Trump said something saucy that's making prudes bust out their fainting couches and we'll get endless articles about the latter and nothing about the former. It's news Huffpo, I mean Reason, but don't overdo it.

    1. Its the feelz rather than irrelevant stuff like a dangerous confrontation with Russia. But we're governed by feelz. So it goes.

    2. Gillespie's changing the name of this joint to to better reflect their mission and content.

    3. Trump said something saucy that's making prudes bust out their fainting couches and causing a lot of people to drop support of Trump and will likely turn off a lot of voters and we'll get endless articles about the latter and its effects on Gary Johnson's campaign

      1. I'd bet I can count the number of minds this will change on one hand. It's just silly noise that won't benefit Johnson or Clinton even though the Reason staff wish it would. This is news that deserves a paragraph or two before moving on to things that are important.

        1. Well Matt's already posted about a few politicians claiming they are changing their vote, so you'll need more than one hand.

          We'll see when new polls come out in a week.

          1. You can bet that the polls are gonna show a drop for Trump.

            Whether those polls will be conducted fairly is another matter.

            70% registered Democrats polled against 30% undecideds ?

            Whatever it takes the pollsters to show a drop is what they will do.

            It's still far enough from the election they don't have to be accurate. They always tighten up their methodology at the last minute to maintain respectability.

            1. Same day recent polls on realclearetc showed 8 and 4% Johnson and one for Pa showed 0% for Stein. Yes, not a single person in Pa will vote for stein acc to the poll.

              And we are supposed to take any of this crapola seriously?

              What the crapo is this?

        2. If Clinton Inc. has let this out this early I can't imagine what they have up their sleeve for two weeks from now.

    4. Russia threatens to shoot down our planes if we follow a policy Hillary Clinton advocates

      Russia will control Europe (and PRC will control east Asia) if we follow the policy that Trump advocates.

      Hillary's policies are bonkers but Trump's manage to be even worse.... it's kind of a pattern.

      1. Russia is incapable of dominating Europe and even that unattainable thing is preferable to war. Russia is a nuclear power with a conventional force that would be quickly defeated by NATO which could very well lead to nukes actually being used. It is absolutely not worth the risk.

        1. Incapable? Seriously?

          1. Their nominal GDP is less than Germany's and their conventional forces are not capable of a sustained large scale war. They can wield influence, especially when it comes to oil, but, yes, they are incapable of dominating Europe.

          2. What makes you think they're capable? They aren't the Soviet Union, especially not the one from 50 years ago.

            1. Don't they control most of the natural gas pipelined into Europe.

              That's a pretty big hammer.

          3. Yeah, seriously. You seriously think Russia has the ability to get its supporters into every government in Europe? I don't know who gave you that PHD, but you clearly overpaid.

        2. "Russia is a nuclear power with a conventional force that would be quickly defeated by NATO"

          The US does not have the resolve to defeat enemies like the Taleban, a militia whose members herd goats in the mountains for half the year. Unlike the Taleban, Russia has both an airforce and a navy. Their goat-herding time is roughly equal to the time the US military devotes to goat-herding.

  4. 900 comment shitshow overnight? Not sorry I missed it. Still writing myself in and not giving a fuck that the major parties have effectively destroyed themselves trying to win the 2016 Presidential election.

    1. Put the marshmallows on the stick and let her burn. I'm with you on this.

    2. I thought Reason shut down for the weekend.
      Big count comment threads is the usual tip off that Correct the Record is in the house.

      1. Normally there's a Linnekin post at 8:00 AM Saturday.

        There used to be a Richman post on Sunday morning, but apparently even the H&R staff are now embarrassed by him.

    3. There were a lot of paid commenters last night.

      1. LOL.

        It's sad, yet funny, to see Reasonoids adapt the tactics and attitudes of the Left. Now you've moved on to claiming that anybody who disagrees with you is being paid to do so.

        1. We aren't important enough to warrant paid commenters.

          1. That's not true, we are important enough to warrant paid commenters. Just not ones that want to be paid in something other than dick pics.

            1. You two shut up.......she has a PHD.

              1. Probably. But, that's good enough!

  5. Hey guys,

    I'm here this morning to watch Gilmore and John and et. al. Act like jackasses by making more excuses for Trump. Anyone know when they wake up?

    1. Hey I loved you in all those poor countries but haven't seen you As much recently. Your last show in Venezuela was a great homage to your earlier work.

      Keep it up -
      A starry eyed fan.

    2. Not sure why Hurricane Mathew did so much damage to Haiti, after all the Clinton foundation was there and didn't they fix......anything ?

    3. Gilmore and John and et. al. Act like jackasses by making more excuses for Trump.

      All the while claiming they are not Trump supporters, too.

      They're just great altruists who defend people who say stupid things.

      1. *takes note of handle*

        I see we have a pretentious cunt this morning. Interesting.

        1. A tulpa sock agreeing with himself.

          Nothing to see....move along.

    4. What excuses even need to be made? Is vulgarity now a crime?

  6. Cucks gonna cuck.

  7. It's no longer socially acceptable to be caught mistreating your multiple young wives.
    Seems like trump and the mormons have something to commiserate over.

    1. If the wives were mistreated, I have yet to hear it from them.

  8. - Trump pollster = "Well, it seems we've lost the mormon vote; however, we're seeing a spike in positive sentiment with the "Crunk" demographic"

  9. There is no sugarcoating it: Utah Republicans have issues with Donald Trump.

    1. I read this in the voice of norm MacDonald

      1. Norm would have added that Trump has a small cock.

  10. Scott Adams on the Trump tape.

    12. I hereby change my endorsement from Trump to Gary Johnson, just to get out of the blast zone. Others will be "parking" their vote with Johnson the same way. The "shy Trump supporter" demographic just tripled.

    1. I had seen that video of his where he described the trump strategy to win (hypnosis) but I didn't realize he was endorsing him - Id thought he was just breaking down the trump phenomenon

      1. He was smart enough to figure out Trump's neurolinguistic programming, but not smart enough not to fall for it.

      2. Adams was cagey about it for a while, then endorsed Hillary "for his safety," due to all the violence directed at Trump supporters. Then Hillary came out for higher estate taxes, and Adams switched his endorsement to Trump.

        1. "Then Hillary came out for higher estate taxes"

          Warren Buffet and his life insurance companies endorsed this message.

          Hey Warren...have you paid your taxes that you claim are too low yet ?

    2. 8. If the LGBTQ community wants to be a bit more inclusive, I don't see why "polyamorous alpha male serial kisser" can't be on the list. If you want to label Trump's sexual behavior "abnormal" you're on shaky ground.

      1. He's going after the latino macho man vote...

        1. Hulko Hogano, wen I get ahold ov you, ooh yeah, arriba! I'm a go na reep you leems off anna beat you een to the grownd ooh yeah! Andele! Ooh yeah!

    3. "But if the new battleground is spousal fidelity, you have to like Trump's chances."


      1. Because... Hillary Clinton stood by her man?

        "My opponent is married to a pig just as bad as me!" does not sound like a great strategy. But I'm not wise like Adams.

        1. It certainly removes the moral high ground.

          1. Bill's not running for president. She's excelled at spousal fidelity.

            I'm sure this tactic will calm some people, but it runs the risk of making her seem victimized, strong, sympathetic.

            1. Point out how she claimed Monica Lewinsky was crazy for making those allegations about Bill.

            2. No, it really doesn't

              She attacked people her husband allegedly assaulted.

              When asked why Trump is so much worse than Bill, she has, no cover.

              As to Bill running, she herself has stated she'll have him doing work for her administration. Him not running is irrelevant.

              1. And how does anyone (much less Donald Trump) make this argument in the confines of the debate? Why keep pushing it instead of talking about Hillary's other faults that can't be mirrored back on to him?

                Whatever. All this prediction stuff is silly, especially when we'll know what happens in less than 36 hours.

                1. This might be the last debate.
                  Maybe they'll have Gary & Jill do the 3rd one since the room is already booked and nobody will care anymore at that point anyway.
                  Then again, I never was much for reality TV, maybe the 3rd one gets the biggest audience just to see what Donald does next

                2. The only way I see iis scorched earth/hypocrisy. Point out Hillary's husband did everything Trump said he did and Hillary actively helped cover it up.

                  Keep repeating it over and over again and make the Democrats and their media allies defend her.

          2. Moral high ground? We should get us some of that. I haven't seen that stuff around here for, hell, for decades.

        2. "Because... Hillary Clinton stood by her man?"

          More because she went scorched earth on the people her husband raped.

          And then stood by him after she knew he was a rapist.

          What's her defense for " why do you tolerate this from your husband while condeming others"?

          1. There is absolutely no evidence that Bill Clinton raped or assaulted anyone.

            Not that it matters to the braindead brigade the Reason commentariat has morphed into.

            1. Can't we get back to talking about the imminent clown threat now?


            2. "He raped me!" Isnt evidence?

              Who knew?

              1. "He raped me!" Isnt evidence?

                Who knew?

                No, it's not. It's an accusation.

                If an accusation is evidence of itself, then there's no such thing as an accusation without evidence.

            3. "or assaulted"

              Incorrect again Tulpa, his admissions regarding his sexual activity with Lewinsky easily meet the definition of workplace sexual assault.

              Of course, you are ignoring all the testimony that he is an actual rapist.

              1. What testimony? She'd be demolished by any half-competent defense attorney.

              2. his admissions regarding his sexual activity with Lewinsky easily meet the definition of workplace sexual assault.

                Incorrect again stalker, the encounter with Lewinsky was consensual.

                One could argue that it fell under the left-fem definition of sexual harassment, but calling it sexual assault is totally unjustifiable.

            4. "absolutely no evidence that Bill Clinton raped or assaulted anyone."

              That 800K out of court settlement was just Bill helping out those less fortunate than him ?

              1. Paula Jones accused him of sexual harassment, not sexual assault. You can't settle out of court for sexual assault.

            5. Were you old enough to watch the news or read a newspaper in 1999?

              Juanita (Hickey) Broaddrick accused WJBC of raping her. It was a twenty-year old charge, and it was never adjudicated, but is the alleged victim's claim not evidence? I thought prog-think was "always believe the (so-called) victim?"

    4. My prediction of a 98% chance of Trump winning stays the same.

      I implore you to reconsider.

      At this point Trump's only chance is if Hillary has a dozen more "overheating" episodes like the one she had at the 9/11 memorial.

      1. It will only take one more.

        1. Fantasy. Kaine would mop the floor with Trump.

          1. Who? Creepy Tim?

            Sure he would.

          2. Yeah, the open borders, more taxes, more Obamacare, more illegals, more gun control, pro-establishment platform is a sure winner this year.

            1. When the alternative is Trump it is.

              That's essentially Hillary's policy platform, and she's winning despite all her baggage. Kaine would necessarily do better.

    5. "parking" their vote with Johnson the same way

      In other words, they'll go in the booth and vote for Trump anyway. I don't believe for a minute any of these johnny-come-lately #nevertrumpers are going to vote for Hillary or Gary.

      1. Agreed. We'll see a whole lot of revealed vs. stated preferences come election day.

    6. That's #12 #2.

  11. So probably they have been sitting on this tape for months, just to be able to bring it out in October. What's the reason why it wasn't released earlier?

    1. The idiot on CNN claimed they just got it 5 days ago. Amazing.

      1. Isn't it obvious? Clinton flunkies just passed it along now. October surprise requires a
        Month that starts with O

        1. I don't think anyone would honestly believe otherwise

    2. Early voting is starting. Why release it before October when it might be forgotten?

      Why wasn't it released later? Not on a Friday afternoon? I suspect it was pushed out yesterday to drown out the Podesta emails.

      And I'm sure they have plenty more of this coming.

      1. ^^^ This. The Podesta emails have barely gotten a mention and the campaign was just able to say "oh those are fake and unimportant" without any scrutiny. In a few days as it dies down they will then say "thats an old story we have already addressed it".

    3. "why it wasn't released earlier" ?

      Easy. It was timed to drown out Hillary's latest email dump about her speeches saying admitting that she has both a private and a public position on issues.

      In other words she is a bald faced effing liar to the public.

  12. Filthy talk terminates ambition while corruption involving the highest levels of the goddamn state warrants a FUCKING shrug?

    1. Forget it, Agile. It's Shittown.

    2. In these times, Agile, apparently so.

    3. Corruption is the norm of the state and therefore not news. Then again, this is Trump's norm as well, so...

    4. It's the straw that broke the camel's back, except it isn't.

      1. There are a lot of low information voters out there.

  13. When you've lost the Flakes and Crapos of DC....

  14. Nothing says libertarian like following the lead of Flake and Crapo.

    1. So... the libertarian thing is to... continue supporting Trump?

      1. The libertarian thing is to not change your vote because of irrelevant bullshit.

        1. I find it hard to understand why anyone who was actually gonna vote for him would change because of this - obviously it's just optics and signaling. As Adams notes - I don't think this is different than what anyone assumed he was personally like

          1. One unlibertarian thing I'd do a president is flog people who use "optics" when they mean "appearances" or "perception".

            1. It isn't even using the word properly.

              In fact, I'm going to start pointing that out.

              1. While you are at it, please point out decimate is to reduce by one tenth, not totally destroy. The Romans will thank you.

            2. i personally like "Optics" as a term specific to politics and finance.

              Its not misued the way "literally" is; and its not a term which "appearances" provides a more-specific or more-accurate replacement for.

              it refers to the idea that politics is inherent multi-dimensional - there's always a difference between what is actually happening vs. what the crafted, superficial imagery of the event is.

              "appearances and perceptions" are mostly in the eyes of the beholder; "Optics" are what are *intended* by actors who are very aware that they're sending messages in various ways to different types of constituents. They're not the same.

        2. I don't think Flake's changing his vote.

        3. The libertarian thing is to not change your vote because of irrelevant bullshit.

          That doesn't answer the question of how your vote got where it was to begin with.

          1. If you're a libertarian, then your vote never got the Trump in the first place. If you're anything but a blind Team Blue partisan, noticing Hillary's history of criminality plus her enabling of Bill's predatory behavior, then it's not that hard.

            1. Can you translate that to English?

              1. It's highly unlikely a libertarian vote went to either Trump or Hillary. In the big scheme of things, Trump's words from ten years ago ARE irrelevant. Hillary's ACTIONS hint at a pattern of behavior, one that Dem partisans continue to ignore. How did their votes get there knowing all that there is to know about Herself?

      2. right...because the commentariat has been nothing but pro-Trump.

        1. I'm responding to Zaytsev, not 'the commentariat.'

          What does it mean to "follow the lead" of Flake and Crapo here? To say on Twitter that "America deserves better than Trump"? It has nothing to do with Matt's post, which is describing what some politicians are doing and supposing that it may mean good things for third parties, particularly in conservative Utah.

          1. I doubt that either Crapo or Flake is thinking third party. They're just part of Team Red that has never liked Trump and this gives them cover for continuing that.

  15. If we win critical states like New Mexico, New Hampshire, and Utah, we can stop [Trump or Clinton] from getting to the critical 270 electoral votes that either of them needs to win the election?

    I'm afraid I'm really going to have to insist this happens.

    1. Win NM, Utah, NH?

      What are you smoking. We are sinking in those three states as we get closer to Nov 8

      I spent today delivering yard signs for Gary but I doubt that we will carry any states. It would be great
      but I will be shocked if we do. At least we will have gotten more name recog for LP than ever before and
      be the new de facto third party and on the ballot for the next election everywhere without having to do petitions.

      Beyond that, what can we really expect?

          1. Don't fuck with Eastwood's Trees

            A blue gum eucalyptus on Eastwood's Carmel property was named the nation's largest hardwood in 2000.

            1. I've got some big, hard wood myself.

    1. America deserves exactly what it is getting, having worked and agitated for at least a century to get it.

      1. America might but I don't. Either one of the two shitstains who are going to win the election shouldn't be in charge of a lemonade stand.

        1. Them's the breaks, kid. You're one of 30,000,000 here. If you want to raise your influence, move to Liberland,

          1. I mean 330,000,000. Fking keyboard.

            1. Heard about this years ago but I thought it fizzled. Is it really a thing and can I bring my guns?

  16. Wait, "Crapo"?


  17. Seriously, what is it going to take for Reason to clean out the cesspool their comment section has become?

    1. Subpoenas from Preet Bharara?

      1. Heh.

        Or maybe not so heh.

    2. Stormy,

      It could be that I agree with you, but could you elaborate?

    3. Maybe if you whine like a bitch and never say anything interesting it will help.

      1. Standing ovation!

    4. What would you suggest?

      1. If they gave me posting privileges, I would make it happen.

    5. A father walks in on his daughter laying on her bed using a vibrator. He says "What the hell happened to you?" She says "Dad, I'm forty-five years old, I have a dead-end job, no love life, no prospects, and I have to do what I can to make myself happy."

      The next day the daughter comes home from work sees her father sitting on the couch with a martini in one hand and the vibrator in the other.

      Shocked, she says "Dad, what are you doing!"

      The father replies, "I'm having a drink with my son-in-law."

      1. You'll never be President with that kinda talk.

  18. The next debate is going to be epic. An epic dumpster fire, that is. *readies popcorn*

    1. It's a town hall meeting. Chance of Trump punching someone?

      1. It's a town hall meeting.

        Oh dear lord.

        1. This is going to make the Reason comments session look like the Algonquin Round Table.

  19. So all these GOP "unendorsements" and none of them can simply endorse the other (former) republicans in the race?? [not talking about Pence either]
    How the fuck is that going to work anyway? In addition to Trump and Hillary, now we can add Pence write-ins to the long list of "spoiler" third party votes?

  20. Here's all you ever needed to know about the Teams:
    --a ten-year old of Trump saying something inappropriate comes out and Pubs start wetting themselves
    --a 30-year history of predatory behavior and enabling surrounds the Dem nominee and the Blues yawn.

    1. Republicans will be kept warm in the glow of their pristine principles as the Democrats continue to win by any means necessary and turn the nation irrevocably into a progressive-dominated banana republic.

  21. Anyone here see the irony in the fact that the "cosmopolitan" libertarians' great hope is the Mormons? Aren't you guys supposed to be cool and hip?

    1. Libertarians are also decent people, like Mormons supposedly are.

      1. You take that back!

        1. I didn't know you were a Mormon, JB.

  22. Anybody else hate how Twitter's embedding causes pages to screw up anchor links? The page takes you to the anchor link before the embedding expands, and then when the embedding expands you go up some number of screens worth (depending on how many embeds there are).

  23. So all these GOP "unendorsements" and none of them can simply endorse the other (former) republicans in the race??

    That was how they screwed up the primaries. They seemed to think they could nominate an entity called "Not Donald Trump" and still participate in the election. One month from Election Day and they still persist in that fantasy. They are called The Stupid Party with good reason,

  24. Someone @ Foreign Affairs points out the obvious:

    (paraphrased) =

    "If you're focused on Trump-the-person, you're completely missing the point that he's just a temporary figurehead for something that is larger and isn't going away"

    Old Whine, New Bottles

    "According to a recent study by the political scientist Justin Gest, 65 percent of white Americans?about two-fifths of the population?would be open to voting for a party that stood for "stopping mass immigration, providing American jobs to American workers, preserving America's Christian heritage, and stopping the threat of Islam." long as neither of the two main U.S. parties addresses their concerns in a serious and empathetic way?by severely limiting undocumented immigration and providing secure employment at decent wages?they will likely remain open to politicians who do make such an effort, however ill informed he or she might be. ... Populism can be dangerous, but it may also be necessary. As the historian C. Vann Woodward wrote in 1959 in response to intellectuals who disparaged populism, "One must expect and even hope that there will be future upheavals to shock the seats of power and privilege and furnish the periodic therapy that seems necessary to the health of our democracy.

    1. *requires registration, but FA is worth it - they publish monthly, and generally only have 2 things worth reading all of anyway... so, your 'free' allotment is more than enough.

    2. Intellectuals disparage populism when it isn't being leveraged for their own ends. When they control it, it's called "populism" and "democracy," when they can't it's called "facism" and "racism".

      1. Sometimes it is facism and racism.

        but your point about how 'intellectuals' often rationalize it or disparage depending on its utility it is mentioned in the article.

  25. Rats fleeing a sinking ship. Says a lot that GOP still has edge per 538 of retaining the Senate. Hillary is going to have little to no coattails.

    1. GOP is almost certainly losing the senate unless Trump drops out. RCP already had the makeup at 50-50 in the no-toss-up count, and this scandal has a Balrog whip.

    2. "Rats fleeing a sinking ship"

      They were looking for a reason and I would be surprised if this is what sinks him. This is like is like your cat leaving another dead mouse on your doorstep. You are again revolted, but it's not a surprise at all. Seems like you would have to come up with something unexpected to turn off his followers although I admit I have no idea what that might be.

      1. Usual rules don't seem to apply.

      2. Ever heard of the straw that breaks the camel's back?

        1. so how many straws does a Team Blue sycophant tolerate? It's not just the predatory behavior of the candidate's husband and her enabling of it, it's also her participation in targeting those women, her selling her office for personal gain, the decision that basically broke Libya.

          The only thing one can say is that Pubs have some standards, Dems have none.


            That seems to be the only argument you have left.

            1. She's his primary opponent so it's valid one.

        2. Yes, it's in my list of cliches to avoid like the Plague.

        3. I have but seriously it's been obvious since before he even even started running that he's a child and horrible POS human being and people seem to be ok with that. I don't see how this changes the dynamic at all. Not to even mention all of the people who are scared shitless of a Hillary presidency. I sure as shit don't want to see her as president and I won't vote for her, but I would never vote for Trump either. Gary isn't my idea candidate but I will vote for limited government by voting for him. At least I hope that's the message given by whatever few percentage of us vote for him.

          1. it's been obvious since before he even even started running that he's a child and horrible POS human being and people seem to be ok with that.

            If this was so obvious, why do his supporters feel the need to constantly defend him from those accusations?

            It's obvious to some of us, most of whom do not support him. (Those who know he's a terrible man-child and still support him are kneebiters of the highest degree). But the apathetic voters, probably not.

            1. "why do his supporters feel the need to constantly defend him from those accusations?"

              Same reason as the Hillary suporters. Rationalization. I'll be glad when the whole thing is over.

              1. I'll be glad when the whole thing is over

                There are 2 possible outcomes. You might want to rethink the being glad thing.

                1. Yeah, I know. I was thinking that as I was typing it. Sad state of affairs.

  26. Rats...sinking ship. None of these republicans endorsed Trump because they endorsed Trump. They could see which way the wind was blowing and held their nose. Opportunists one and all. I am not going to hold my breath waiting for Trump to drop out or for him to necessarily lose. Let's see where he is this time next week. If he doesnt fall in the polls it will be entertaining to watch all these guys try to slime their way back into favor.

    Does anyone think the D's will drop Hillary if...say...she were to side with a rapist over his victims? What if she actively assisted a rapist with getting away with his crimes, would they drop her then? Would these same R's denounce her as unfit for the office?

    1. Opportunists one and all.

      Yup; their own version of social signaling. From what I see, a lot of their base is not buying what's being sold. It's easy to be disgusted by what Trump said; it's even easier to recall things the Clintons actually did.

  27. So the social conservatives have finally found a serious reason to disown Trump - he's a vile scumbag who sexually assaults women. Ha-Ha.

    Things that didn't turn them off include a 35% import duty, a minimum wage of $12, a border wall, socialized medicine, $500 billion in "infrastructure" spending, a trade war with China and unlimited military spending.

    Well, now we know their actual priorities.

    Of course many of these politicians hated Trump and were just looking for a generally acceptable reason to dump him and perhaps this provided them what they need. However, they always had the option of supporting Gary Johnson but they adamantly refused to do so because even though they agreed with GJ about economics, they regarded his social views (drug legalization, gay marriage) as disqualifiers. For the so-cons, economics always comes second behind "restoring America's religious heritage".

    Did you ever notice that every time an election is supposed to be a choice between the lesser of two evils that the following election has two even greater evils? Bush-Gore was bad, Obama-McCain was worse, Obama-Romney looked like the low point but Clinton-Trump is a choice that would have been inconceivable in 1996.

    1. Things that didn't turn them off include a 35% import duty, a minimum wage of $12, a border wall, socialized medicine, $500 billion in "infrastructure" spending, a trade war with China and unlimited military spending.

      And the mother of all gun control schemes in "no fly-no buy". Pairing the unlimited military spending with breaking all of our alliances is even better.

  28. Rats jumping off a sinking ship, that's what I think.

      1. Just one. And it's running for president

    1. Yeah, but what's funny is that these rats don't know how to swim and are going to be swept under in the Clintonian tidal wave.

      We now have a sexual predator running against a woman who protected a sexual predator in order to gain a path to power. What's a poor so-con to do?

      Was there ever a clearer case of power corrupting people?

      Lord Acton, where are you when we need you?

  29. haven't read yet -

    Important Question for the GOP "Intellectual" Class*: What Percentage of the GOP Do You Estimate Actually Are Irredeemably Racist Deplorables?

    *While i expect mewings of objection - i'd think "libertarians" sometimes fall in this category.

    Not because the GOP - as a party - shares anything in common w/ libertarians, but because these so-called intellectuals often do.

    My own guess? 10%

    1. oh, and that % is actually higher among people 'of the left'.

      I've heard too many socialists confess to me that the reason for Welfare and Food Stamps and all the other freebees for 'the poor' is less out of any sense of 'fairness', and more out of mortal terror that the blacks will come and burn down their suburb.

      1. Add support for gun control to that as well.

      2. "...mortal terror that the blacks will come and burn down their suburb."

        Bingo. That is 100% the reason for it even if they won't admit it to themselves.

      3. "I've heard too many socialists confess to me..."

        These are the same 'socialists' who oppose single payer medical insurance because they don't want shiftless black folks from sponging off their taxes. It's racism pure and simple. Don't be fooled by attempts to tart it up as socialism.

    2. *having now read that...

      its weird. I think something interesting was said, but i'm not sure what. Its a frothing rant at the so-called GOP elite ... suggesting they seem far too quick to disavow their own constituents whenever other people accuse them of 'racism'.


      At what point did you realize the party was jam-packed full of racists and anti-semites, so many, in fact, that it becomes a moral necessity to tank an election to prevent them from taking over the country?

      Have you always suspected this? Or did this revelation occur the day Trump won enough delegates to become nominee?

      And if it's the latter: Do you think maybe you're living in the echoes of a powerful emotional experience, and perhaps should discount your emotional response a little bit? Do you think that, after you successfully throw the election to Hillary, all these racist voters can be successfully re-programmed to be non-racist? Or do you just hope to use the racists for more useful ends, such as being needed votes for TPP and amnesty and bombing Syria or whatever?

      On that last point: If you intend to re-assimilate the racists into your party to regain political power, but use them to your own ends, you're still kinda depending on/courting these racists, aren't you?

      I think the interesting bit is sort of in that last part -

      Its sort of like Hillary and her comments re: the Bernie types - or the stuff that came out in the dump last night (contd)

    3. During the initial media pieces defining the new-fangeled term "alt right" to their viewing audiences, several included Ron Paul as one of the founding members. ISYN

  30. Mice scrambling under the floorboards, that's all this is.

    1. Monkeys loose in a toy store, more like

      1. That actually sounds kind of fun though.I supposed until you get hit with a flying toy.

          1. Ewwwwww

  31. Still waiting for a democrat to say - I have reached a decision and can no longer remain silent.

    The democrat candidate Hilary Clinton is unfit to serve our nation.
    Not only is she a liar, dishonest, and incompetent, but she is a war monger and supports the racist and un Constitutional war on drugs.

    And then I woke up........

    1. The Democrats' deplorable support for Hillary does not imply that Republicans must support Trump.

  32. Although I disagree with Hillary making up stuff against his husband's mistresses, I won't fault her for staying with him. I wouldn't have faulted her for living apart from him (maybe she does already?). But it's certainly better than moving in with the poolboy (or girl).

    The truly appalling thing is that Hillary may win the election after 8 years of Obama and with all the baggage she's carrying, simply because the Republican is such a shitstain. This was the Republicans' election to lose, and it seems they're doing their best to lose it.

    Allow me to offer this suggestion - under the 12th Amendment, for a Presidential candidate to win in the electoral college, he or she needs a majority of all the electors, not just the electors who cast votes. If the Republicans take the electoral college, perhaps some of the the electors could leave their Presidential ballots blank, while voting for Pence for Vice President. Then the Republicans, when the election goes into the House, can block the election of any candidate, which means that whoever gets elected VP in the Senate - hopefully Pence - will act as President per the 20th Amendment.

    Why can't some of the state Republican parties announce this as their strategy - you get to keep Hillary out of the White House and put a Republican in, it just won't be Trump.

    Of course, this assumes the Republicans win and keep the Senate, and keep a majority of the House delegations. But it's still a better gamble than Trump.

  33. Interesting. In that situation, the House could theoretically vote among the top three EC vote getters at any time during the term. So if the Dems regain the House in 2018, they could immediately install Hillary as the president. I don't think the GOP would want that. Presumably it would also mean that Pence can't nominate a VP to serve under him, since he's only acting as president.

    If both House and Senate refuse to vote for a president and VP respectively, then it's not clear who becomes president on 1/20/2017. The Constitution doesn't say anything about the previous president becoming ineligible to serve when the next term begins, so Obama would have a case for staying in the White House. (22nd amendment would only prohibit him from being elected, not serving) The opposing case would be for Paul Ryan as speaker of the House, who is after the VP in the line of succession.

      1. I don't think that is tulpa. It has a kind of shreeky feel about it. Of course tulpa could be shreek...or is shreek tulpa? I get confused sometimes.

        1. Yeah, if you want to ascribe a troll to it, it's more Bo.

    1. So if the Dems regain the House in 2018, they could immediately install Hillary as the president.

      Except, it doesn't work like that. Each state is given one vote. So, the Dems would need to control 26 states in their representation (assuming a party-line vote). That doesn't seem likely. Currently, it's 33 R, 14 D, and 3 split.

      1. You're right. So it would be harder for them to do it, but not impossible. I just think it's an interesting possibility.

    2. No, once the house selects a president he serves for the full 4 year term, and can only be removed by a 2/3 majority of both houses.

  34. Let's try for a less controversial topic, which I am not making up:

    Is Gary Johnson like Abraham Lincoln?

    1. You mean is he going to start a civil war that kills 600,000 Americans? I doubt it.

      1. I think they mean does he have a big-ass hole in his head with his brains leaking out..

  35. Every presidential election cycle we get an October surprise. The Trump tape is yet another October surprise.

    Not very surprising at all.

    Here's hoping Johnson wins a State or two, neither Clinton/Trump gets 270 Electoral votes, and the election gets kicked to the House.

  36. Bull in a china shop!

  37. Did Tulpa undergo gender reassignment comment registration?

    1. Have you been out grabbing pussies with daddy all night and track of things?

      1. Lost track.... evil tree living rodents

  38. This is why Democrats are at such a huge advantage. They stick by their candidate, no matter if the candidates is eating babies alive in the street. Not sure how much clearer it could be.

    Hillary, corruption scandal after corruption scandal after corruption scandal. Democrats: What?, fake scandal!

    The Donald, once said something mean. GOP: We can't support him now!

  39. As an atheist I've often been asked what would it take for me to believe in God?

    If, during the next presidential debate, a funnel cloud descends on the platform and sucks up the two tyrant wannabes who are never seen again, then I would have to seriously reconsider by beliefs.

    Right now, that scenario presents the best chance of saving Americans from an unconstrained government. Slightly less likely is Johnson winning the election.

    1. I dunno, I never thought The Johnson would get this far. Despite his lackluster performance The Johnson is polling pretty well. He will just have to keep hard at it. Who knows?

      1. If he garners more votes than the difference between Clinton and Trump he will change American politics forever especially if the votes come from younger voters. Politicians looking at 2020 will start saying "Maybe this liberty stuff could be useful". At that point we need a dedicated liberty firebrand capable of inspiring people without becoming a power mad megalomaniac.

        If the political establishments could turn to scum like ClinTrump in order to win they might not realize how dangerous a real pro-liberty candidate would be to them.

        Political "leaders" are weather vanes incapable of acting against cultural winds. Blow hard enough and they'll turn you way.

        1. make that "turn your way".

      2. Johnson is doing the Lord's work by standing to break the 5% barrier, which would have major ramifications for future LP ballot access and funding.

        1. The Commission on Presidential debates will have to raise the bar to 33% or maybe insist that only candidates belonging to a party that has, at one time, won the presidency, may participate in the debates.

    2. I'd prefer a sharknado.

      1. Watching Trump or Clinton being devoured like Robert Shaw in "Jaws" would make my day, but alas, karma is altogether too random.

  40. Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Orem)
    Rep. Chris Stewart (R-Salt Lake City)
    Mia Love (R-Salt Lake City)

    So either these are state reps, or there's at least 52 states including the states of Orem & SLC. This kind of sloppy non-style guide gets reason editors without portfolios whacked, Matt. Just ask [redacted].

    1. [redacted] certainly had some 'splainin' to do!

    2. Trump is losing the Mormon legislator vote.

    3. Orem and SLC are their congressional districts. It's not uncommon to identify House members with their district rather than their state.

      1. Congressional Districts are identified by number, not metro area.

  41. McMullen is just running to stop Gary Johnson. It's been obvious from the start.

    1. Stop Gary Johnson from what? Winning the election? Are you that high?

      1. No, just from winning Utah.

        Certain social conservatives regard same sex marriage and legalized marijuana as bigger threats than a $20 Trillion debt. A vote for someone who supports these is like a vote to destroy civilization.

        The Mormon Church, like many churches that rely on sacred texts, takes a very dim view of heresy because unorthodox views incite the passions which dark forces utilize to tear people away from God. (I am an atheist but I am trying to explain this as fairly as I can).

        I've over simplified this but it remains that social conservatives are under tremendous peer pressure to conform to biblical strictions on behavior. If you believed that sex between two men could actually tear a whole in the fabric of existence and free dark forces that can destroy everything you love, what would you do? This is how gay sex and legalized drugs "feel" to certain devout believers

        McMullin probably sees himself as a protector of the church and even of the souls of the parishioners.

  42. Do voters generally give a shit what politicians endorse their guy?

  43. People are upset that Republicans are finally abandoning Donald Trump?


    1. Because a Euro-style nationalist is preferable to Hillary?

    2. No one drops a candidate because of one big mistake or even one horrendous comment. It's like the avalanche in "Ice Age" that's started by a squirrel dropping an acorn. The pressure had built over the ages and finally let go. It's was the same way with Trump, all we had to do was wait for a critical mass of stupidity and malice to built up, then boom!

      1. Strangely, the same dynamic of that hag's lies and felonies has yet to have the same effect on her.

        1. I'm not sure why but it appears that Clinton can't reach the critical mass because 1) she's been leading and 2) has had no serious opposition to which she hasn't surrendered. No matter how stupid Bernie was, she could always move farther left. Pressure builds and surrender is the safety valve that protects her. Any free traders left in the Democrat party? Any hard core free speech people? They are the ones who moved to Johnson but 2% doesn't hurt a party with a 10% lead.

          The ideological splits in the Republican party are real and they are the reason that you always hear the Paul Ryans and Reince Priebuses call for unity above principle. "Big tents" and "outreach" are constant refrains. Pressure can build because there is some opposition. Ryan relieved the budget pressure by surrendering to Patti Murray, the dumbest creature in the Senate.

          Since the Democrat party is totally unified ideologically towards more and bigger government, there's no way to build pressure as long as you're a weather vane that blows with the immediate winds.

    3. "...Why?"

      The scheduled nuptials with SIV.

    4. People are upset that Republicans are finally abandoning Donald Trump?


      Why don't you ask the specific people you see being upset? they might know.

  44. just got to thinking how much of a jackass ted cruz has got to feel like now that he caved...and right before all this.

      1. this latest revelation, which has lead to some republicans calling for his removal. cruz had taken the most principled and highest profile stand against trump, and then he finally thru it away because he couldn't stand republicans being mad at him. weird thing is he never cared about them hating him before. had he been more patient, it would've benefited him greatly politically.

        1. Meh. Ted Cruz was a smarmy dickbag before he endorsed trump. He was a smarmy dickbag after doing so. His smarmy dickbaggery is not Trump-related.

          1. If Trump had accused my father of assassinating JFK Trump would be spitting out his teeth. Supporting him for president? Even the threat of that spawn of Satan and a jackal in a pants suit couldn't get me to do that.

  45. Late to this thread, but i dont understand how this changes anything. Are there actually people out there who supported him after all the other appalling shit he's said but their minds are changed by yet another example of such shit?

  46. so, as a question, what exactly can Trump legally do at this point, now that all these Republicans are calling for his resignation in the last 30 days of the race?

    to what degree can Trump even theoretically cater to their desires?

    1. Realizing that the new captain of their Titanic is speeding towards the biggest iceberg they've ever seen the Republicans have decided to man the lifeboats and hope that they don't die in the storm.

    2. Indulging the hypothetical that a man with Trump's ego would ever consider resigning as requested by these Republicans, at this point he cannot be removed from most (all?) ballots, but as the name on the ballot is simply a stand-in for the team of electors who actually cast the consequential votes he could instruct his electors to vote for someone else and then let everyone know that a vote for his ballot line would be a vote for this other person. I don't know how this would fly with laws against faithless electors.

  47. For me, I appreciate that these folks have proved their complete and utter political spinelessness. For anyone that thought they had principles, here now is the proof they do not.

  48. as Victoria answered I am in shock that a stay at home mom can get paid $8658 in four weeks on the internet
    see more at----------->>>

  49. as Victoria answered I am in shock that a stay at home mom can get paid $8658 in four weeks on the internet
    see more at----------->>>

  50. as Victoria answered I am in shock that a stay at home mom can get paid $8658 in four weeks on the internet
    see more at----------->>>

  51. Just the reaction wanted my the Hillary people and MSM. Unimportant drivel if a hot-microphone session from 2005 is the nail in the coffin. This is not Bill Clinton's bimbo eruption. Hillary really demeaned women when that one came up. Remember "drag a ten dollar bill through a trailer part" defending Bill. Cut the crap out and get back to the hard work of making sure a felon like Hillary goes to jail instead of the White House.

  52. "Remember "drag a ten dollar bill through a trailer part" defending Bill."

    That was Mary Matalin's husband, James Carville.

  53. But what if the angel Moroni came back to Earth and personally endorsed Trump?

  54. Um... Who is Crappo? I have heard of Harpo, Zeppo and Dilbert, and Scott Adams todays says:
    To be fair, Gary Johnson is a pot head who didn't know what Allepo was. I call that relatable. A President Johnson administration might bring with it some operational risks, and policy risks, but at least he won't slime you by association and turn you into some sort of cheerleader for sex abuse in the way you would if you voted for the Clintons or Trump.

    If you take allegations of sex abuse seriously ? and you should ? vote Johnson. To vote for Clinton or Trump is to be seen by others as an enabler for sexual abuse. I don't think that's what anyone had in mind by breaking the glass ceiling. Don't let it happen to you.

  55. just as Curtis replied I am in shock that a person can profit $4424 in 1 month on the internet
    see more at----------->>>

  56. Start working at home with Google! It's by-far the best job I've had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this - 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go? to tech tab for work detail,,,,,,,


  57. Start working at home with Google! It's by-far the best job I've had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this - 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go? to tech tab for work detail,,,,,,,


Please to post comments

Comments are closed.