Peter Beinart astutely points out many are likely privately voting for Clinton, and will brag to their grandchildren they did. But their public silence might have helped elect President Trump. His colleague David Frum already shows what the conservative case for Hillary is, and it’s a template they can follow. Beck and Will are already attacking Comey and defending Hillary, they might as well endorse her too.
And they don’t even need to endorse Hillary. Most of these folks live in likely red states like Texas and Georgia, and the media types are in the deep blue Acela Corridor. Their protest votes are inconsequential. But what about the Beck listening Mormon small business owner in Colorado or Nevada? What about the pro-life veteran in North Carolina or Florida? These folks have been marginalized already by many Republican voters, but they still command large platforms and audiences. They can use this platform to deny Trump the presidency, and the only way that happens is if Trump loses the electoral college to his only viable opponent Hillary Clinton.
Romney had the strategy of endorsing Kasich in OH, Cruz in Texas, and Rubio in Florida to cause a deadlock and avert a Trump nomination. A similar strategy could be applied here. He could gather all the NeverTrump Republicans for a quick press conference that would command the news cycle before the end of the election. They could list their reasons why Trump is worse than Clinton, and urge a vote for Clinton to block Trump in swing states while endorsing Evan or Gary for safe states. Hell, invite Evan and Gary to this conference and have them agree to this pledge. The stakes are too high for Never Trump Republicans to stay home or to stay silent.
Peter Porcupine says
I was not initially a Never Trump – his boorishness and lack of understanding of government and society turned me into one. So I did not vote for him.
Hillary Clinton is a deeply corrupt and deeply flawed individual. Her knowledge of how to pull the strings of government is a drawback in her case, as I do not trust her instincts, her character, her truthfulness, her integrity, and at times her considerable intelligence, warped as it is by her paranoia and self-entitlement. In many ways, I trust her less with the nuclear codes than Trump. She can do greater damage. So I did not vote for her.
I have the luxury of living in a blue state, where a protest vote is just as irrelevant as a sincere vote is, unless it is for a Democrat. So I voted for Johnson, mainly due to knowing both Bill Weld and Carla Howell. I’d like to see a greater Libertarian Party for those of us who are economic and defense conservatives rather than social conservatives. I would not have voted that way had there been a chance of him winning, as I regard their foreign policy as dangerously naive. For me, not voting was not an alternative.
You entire post is very Inside Baseball, about strategies and appearances. Most people don’t vote that way, not even political people. As a Democrat, you underestimate the disdain that Hillary Clinton is held in by millions of people. It is real, and prevents them from voting for her.
For me, there is a precedent. I voted for John Anderson in 1980, because I did not regard Reagan as presidential material, and Carter had already proven he was not.
But you always need to remember – the Republic will survive the election of your enemies.
Christopher says
…the election of this particular enemy.
jconway says
And Frum makes a better case for conservatives than I can. And remember, I am still technically unenrolled and very honest about Hillary’s flaws for which I have taken a lot of flak for here. But there is no equivalency.
One person is capable of being President, the other person is not. One person is committed to constitutional norms and the other is not. One person is committed to 60 year foreign policy norms including NATO and the other is not. One person recognizes the threat of Russia and the other does not.
This is not a Romney/Obama election. This is the equivalent of a Romney/Farrakhan election. And in that scenario, I would proudly cast my vote for Romney for the good of the Republic. Many here wouldn’t say that, but Beinart does, I do, and that’s the attitude Frum and many Republicans-including some more conservative than you-are bringing to this decision.
Christopher says
…the disdain people feel for her is largely unjustified.
jconway says
A good friend from Chicago is a fiscal and defense conservative whose largely libertarian on social questions. He despises Hillary and even buys into some seedier allegations against Bill. He’s voting for her anyway since he recognizes the unique risks to national and international institutions that sending a man so patently uninterested/unqualified to govern to the White House.
For us this would be like a Romney/Farrakhan election, and I did have to like Mitt to recognize he’d be better President in that binary. A prisoners dilemma for sure, and Farrakhan might even be better and say things I like more, but Mitt would still be a better president by every metric and would have my vote. A nightmare scenario that is truly real for our right of center friends. Opting for “none of the above” is irresponsible in a swing state or if you have the platform to influence those voters. I begrudge Porcupine nothing with her choice, I do think Kasich and Romney have an obligation to come out for
Clinton in swing states.
JimC says
It’s been 25 years.
johntmay says
Anyone think that, if Sanders was our nominee, that he would not be ahead in the polls at this date with NO worries about more investigations by congress, the FBI and the rest?
JimC says
n/t
johntmay says
The only mud people could toss at him was “he’s a socialist”. He’s not rich, not a Washington insider and unlike the two people running at the moment, he’s a warm and likable guy who does not have a “public” side and a “personal” side….and people really, really like that.
Christopher says
…he’s also probably get anti-Semitism:(
johntmay says
private servers, pay to play, insider deals, and so much more “red meat” for more of the 1990’s that so many of us, myself included, really do not want to relive.
Christopher says
We cannot allow the shenanigans of the other side to dictate our choices. We cannot allow them to hijack our process, blackmail voters, and basically threaten to make our political life hell because we don’t vote for them. If we must relive the 90s (something I’m not looking forward to on this front either), it will be ENTIRELY their fault, not hers.
JimC says
“Would America Really Elect a Socialist?” would be lead story on a different network every day.
Weasels like Paul Ryan would have perfect cover. “I disagree with what Trump said, but the alternative is SOCIALISM.”
I think the race would still be close, but Bernie would not be a lock to win by any means.
jconway says
1) Bernie Would be Polling Better
In a vacuum sure, and on the spectrum of independents who seemed to like him in the primary.
But two rebuttals:
a) Can’t win the general if you lose the primary
As I said this to Berwick/Grossman supporters who said their candidate would’ve clobbered Baker, but if they lost to Coakley who lost to Baker it’s likely they would’ve lost to Baker. Coakley, a flawed candidate, was better than them by definition that she won the nomination. Similarly, Clinton winning the nomination is proof she had the better organization and capability to win.
b) Bernie has never been tested in a competitive general election before
Here is a clip of him bashing John F Kennedy for going after Castro. I found this with a quick google search, but there is a lot more radical stuff he said over the years that would come back to bite him in a general election.
That said 2016 is a crazy year, and maybe he’d be doing a little better. He’s certainly proving to be a more popular surrogate on the campaign trail than Bill Clinton, which shows how much the party gravity has shifted to the left. Something Hillary astutely recognizes.
2) Clinton Scandals
Is it that hard to recognize that the right has manfactured most of these but that they stick since the Clinton’s have occasional lapses in judgment? I can believe both of these things simultaneously, since they both happen to be true. Knowing his own flaws, Bill should’ve avoided easy traps and temptations. Knowing her own flaws, Hillary could’ve been more transparent and forthcoming when the scandal broke.
Ironically, polling hasn’t moved much. So the Clinton supporters worried that the FBI is now part of the VRWC are overreacting, and the Bernie supporters saying I told you so are also overreacting. But turn that overreaction into action by phonebanking, doorknocking, or donating. Turn that panic into power.
stomv says
I’m picking up what you’re putting down, but the binary choice for POTUS is not a prisoner’s dillema, a very specific game theoretic construct where two prisoners act in secret and
* if one prisoner is selfish, he gets no punishment and the other prisoner suffers a severe punishment
* if both prisoners are selfish, both receive a moderate punishment
* if neither prisoner is selfish, both receive a light punishment
This ain’t that.
jconway says
It’s more a of a collecive action problem, and has been since their primary.
#NeverTrump conservatives agree on four underlying points:
1) Trump is not qualified to be President
2) Trump’s foreign policy endangers national security
3) Trump’s domestic policy endangers our economy
4) Trump is a threat to constitutional governance
If you believe all four points and live in a swing state it is irresponsible not to vote for Hillary Clinton, whom they would concede is at least better on points 1 and 2,.
If you believe all four points, live in a safe state, and have a wide platform within the conservative movement, it is still irresponsible not to endorse her for swing state voters. Romney et al could campaign for McMuffin in Utah and Hillary in Ohio and maintain consistency, just as they did during the primary.
Peter Porcupine says
…why do people think that way.
I do not expect you to concur or understand, but it is real.
For example, banking on people thinking Comey was wrong to defy the DOJ and speak out will likely be negated by the next email dump, alleged to show that DOJ was improperly trying to hush things up on Clinton’s behalf. Things like this give birth to that disdain. And relying on the argument that the opponent has a potty mouth doesn’t do much to eliminate it.
jconway says
Relying solely on a ‘Trump has a potty moth’ is a Jeb style attack that doesn’t work, I concur. But Trump is disqualified because he literally lacks the experience, judgment, record, and capabilities to be President. In addition to a record of racist rhetoric, racist associations, associations with foreign intelligence, and open sexual assault allegations. Sure, he is over 35 and born here, but otherwise, he is ineligible for the office.
What’s the worse Hillary can do that won’t be checked by a Republican House and a media that you have to concede, is openly skeptical of her?
Christopher says
The disdain was birthed a generation ago by enemies bent on destroying her and Bill, and a fellow-travelling narrative. The modern stuff is just grist for the mill that fits the supposed narrative.
jconway says
I am saying that the disdain even rational Republicans have for her is incurable, but the disdain they have for Trump is entirely valid and should be used to seal the deal on voting for Hillary. My Republican friend in Chicago believes she and Bill attacked rape accusers, but he is voting for her anyway since he recognizes the alternative threatens the very core of our country. You can’t make them like her or even work with her in office, but for one brief week in November we can come together on saving our country from Trump.
SomervilleTom says
You wrote:
This summarizes the devastating impact of decades of right-wing lies about and against Hillary Clinton. These attacks are not supported by facts, and exist today primarily because they’ve been repeated by so many sources in so many contexts that people think they are accurate. They are not.
A host of people have spent a fortune trying to prove these, and have come up empty. “Deeply corrupt”? In comparison to what? The evidence that Bill Weld knew about and ignored corruption and worse during his oversight of the Big Dig is far more compelling and far better documented than any of the numerous claims against Ms. Clinton — yet you ignore his corruption and repeat unfounded charges about hers.
Paranoia ? Self-entitlement? Utterly baseless.
How could Ms. Clinton POSSIBLY do “greater damage” with the nuclear codes than a man who has already said — multiple times — that he’d use them?
The text I quoted above exemplifies the incredible damage caused by decades of unchallenged right-wing lies and disinformation.
JimC says
And PP did.
We disagree. But for example the Clinton Foundation — to Republicans it is a money laundering operation for people who want to bribe the Clintons. It has NO OTHER PURPOSE in their view (again, not my view).
Christopher says
Seems to me she sympathizes with the sentiment that Tom was objecting to.
SomervilleTom says
To the Republicans, the Clinton Foundation is a “money laundering operation for people who want to bribe the Clintons” — and those same Republicans have no problem with the Trump foundation, a clearly fraudulent operation used to bribe people like Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi with other people’s money.
I understand that PP is describing an attitude. I am describing what I see as the truth about that attitude and the people who hold it.
My point is that people have trying to find issues with the Clinton Foundation for years, and have come up empty-handed — just like all the other fishing expeditions mounted against the Clintons (with public funds). Meanwhile, even the most cursory investigation of the Trump foundation reveals fraud after fraud. The Clinton Foundation reveals and reports EVERYTHING — the Trump foundation doesn’t file even in the most basic paperwork in the state of New York.
The point is that there is simply NO comparison between the two. There is just no way to rationally criticize the Clinton Foundation and then excuse the Trump Foundation.
This exemplifies the fundamental disconnect from reality, rationality, and any sense of logic that I’m talking about.
johntmay says
The Clintons know that any foundation with their name on it will be a lightning rod for controversy, especially while one of them is holding a public office. Why keep it? Why not turn it over to some other organization and remove that criticism?
centralmassdad says
If the Clinton Foundation were closed up, then these people will fabricate some other fake scandal with which to perturb the delicate sensitivities of people like you. It is all bullshit, and has always been all bullshit.
The Limbaugh/Hannity people don’t much care whether any of this crap has a shred of truth, so long as it allows them to gridlock the government. The “Bernie’s Last Stand” pearl-clutchers have not got the brains to tell the difference between a morsel of filet mignon and a moldy dog turd, and will lap up whatever is served up to them, so long as it is anti-Clinton. None of these people care if anything is true, so long as it feels true, and reinforces what they already believe. So fuck them.
You don’t surrender to this sort of horseshit; you defeat it.
SomervilleTom says
n/m
centralmassdad says
I am fervently hoping– in the (I hope) event that things do not turn to shit on Tuesday– that President-Elect Clinton and new President Clinton listen carefully to the sage counsel that will be offered by our esteemed media (I am guessing David Brooks and maybe Tom Friedman, among others) that our country has suffered a divisive election, and must now be healed by a conciliatory President who must make overtures to the Republican majority in the House and (again, I hope) super-minority in the Senate in the form of appointments and policy in order to bind up our wounds, etc. ad nauseum, consider such advice carefully and thoughtfully, and then say “yeah, fuck that.”
johntmay says
Tell me why it’s just the Clintons that the loony right fabricates so many scandals? Why the Clintons and not Senator Warren, or Senator Sanders, or President Obama, or anyone else?
SomervilleTom says
The Clintons are targeted for a collection of reasons, of which the most important (in my opinion) is that Bill Clinton beat the daylights out of the GOP when they started this crappola.
The GOP has been misogynist for decades, alongside their racism. Hillary Clinton’s straight-ahead feminism has been a giant red flag provoking attacks on her from those who hate powerful and assertive women for as long as she’s been in the public eye:
The GOP despises “uppity ni**ers” — hence their relentless personal attacks on Barack Obama — and women with an “attitude”. The GOP despises the reality that Bill Clinton was better at politics than any of them. It despises the reality that a man who was a better politician and better president than anyone from the GOP loves and stays married to a woman like Hillary Clinton. It despises the reality that a strong, powerful, smart, and assertive woman like Hillary Clinton stays married to Bill Clinton in spite of his failings. The story of their marriage demonstrates genuine family values, something that sticks in the craw of GOP men and women alike. The GOP made a mockery of family values by morphing them into tired misogynistic lies, and using the result to attack the LGBT community, contraception, freedom of choice, equal pay for equal work, and the nearly endless list of similar assaults on women. Bill and Hillary Clinton spotlight the counterfeit of those Republican “family values” in the most effect way possible — by simply living them.
A simple comparison of Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton exemplifies the GOP attitude towards women.
There are a host of reasons why the entire GOP — not just the loony right — fabricates so many scandals. All of them reflect badly on the scandal-mongers, and none of them have any substance at all.
centralmassdad says
The only way that you can believe that is if you are BOTH (i) stupid, and (2) dishonest to yourself. Neither is sufficient, both are required to wade that deep into the bullshit. The ones that get targeted by this sort of right-wing claptrap are the ones that are a threat to the right wing. Senator Sanders, bless his heart, was never a threat to anyone anywhere. Were he a threat, more people in the country would know about how much he loves Fidel Castro and how he vacationed in the USSR.
Obama is from Kenya. Obama is a Muslin terrorist. Obama goes to an anti-American church. Obama is a tyrant. Senator “Pocahontas.”
It really isn’t worth adding it up for you: you have made clear, for many many months, that you add two and two and get Thursday.
SomervilleTom says
I get that you find this inconceivable, but the obvious answer to your question (“Why keep [the Clinton Foundation]?”) is because they genuinely CARE about the work it does.
The annals of American mythology are filled with tales (mostly fantasy, but so what) of individuals and families who passionately care about a vision and who make enormous sacrifices, work incredible hours, and do astonishing things in order to make that vision real — and in order to profit from it. The idea of profiting handsomely and personally from a bold and successful personal initiative is as American as apple pie and Horatio Alger.
The Clinton Foundation exemplifies this proud tradition. That’s why they keep it.
That is also why the right-wing — and too many others molded by right wing lies — hate it so much.
JimC says
Imagine you’re Bill Clinton in the year 2000. You’re 54, and you’ve just completed two terms as President. Your international popularity exceeds your national popularity. Nelson Mandela calls you a friend, and wants you to help spread democracy in South Africa.
If you imagine the Foundation ABSENT Republican claims about it, you have an admirable endeavor. His other options were to write books and give speeches forever. Why not start a Foundation that can leverage his popularity?
The only “controversy” about the Foundation is its size, and the fact that it does a bunch of different things. Some other, more specialized nonprofits think they should get that cash, and that they deliver better because they’re specialized. People of good will can disagree about that.
It’s not what the GOP says it is. I know people who worked there. They work hard and do what they say. If the Clintons benefit from it … better that than Goldman Sachs.
SomervilleTom says
Amen to all of the above.
Just to build on your point in your second-to-last paragraph, I suggest that the biggest controversy about the Clinton Foundation is its success. It is large because it is successful. It does a huge array of excellent work, and has been doing so for as long as it has existed. It is a genuine expression of the values the GOP claims to hold dear, and it is enormously successful.
That’s why the GOP hates it so much.
centralmassdad says
The gripes from the other charities are twofold:
Traditionally, big foundations don’t DO charitable work, but rather collect money and make grants to those who do charitable work. The Clinton Foundation cut out the middleman: it uses its considerable star power to raise significant resources, which puts other foundations into the shade, and then does charitable work, rather than issuing grants. It thus frosts both ends of the existing charity world, but at the same time creates a very effective organization because of efficiency.
That means that there were some people willing to grumble to Peter Schweizer, who is an employee of Breitbart, and wrote the Clinton Cash book. Estimable publications such as the New York Times and Washington Post— which our friend johntmay tells us are unfairly pro-Clinton– received copies of the book before its release in return for the agreement to publish stories pursuing story lines found in the book. And when they do, Brietbart.com publishes stories that begin “Even the liberal New York Times published…”
All in all, the entire process has been an impressive hack of the supposedly “liberal/but pro-Hillary” media. And, not coincidentally, has demonstrated the real decline in value of that media. (And why I am not particularly concerned about the decline in press-conferences.)
JimC says
If you’re an international businessman who’s concerned about world hunger … should you give money to Oxfam or Bill Clinton? It must seem unfair at times.
So then I imagine charities partner with them … but then the much larger Foundation and its influential heads get to make certain decisions.
I think there’s a case to be made against it, but the case for it is stronger. The Clintons would do something, they might as well do this.
And of course, she could have declined to be Secretary of State in favor of doing the work of the Foundation. Not saying she should have … but she could have, and that would raise fewer questions.
SomervilleTom says
You ask:
It seems to me that first step in answering this question is basic due diligence — compare the performance of the two charities. It took me about thirty seconds to find two organizations that rate each charity:
Charity Navigator: Clinton Foundation, Oxfam America
American Institute of Philanthropy: Clinton Foundation, Oxfam America
Both sources give high ratings to each foundation. Each source gives the Clinton Foundation a higher rating than Oxfam America:
Charity Navigator: Clinton Foundation | Oxfam America
Overall Score & Rating: 94.74, four stars (highest) | 86.17, three stars
Financial: 97.50, 4 stars | 80.68, 3 stars
Accountability & Transparency: 93.00, 4 stars |97.00, 4 stars
American Institute of Philanthropy: Clinton Foundation | Oxfam America
Rating: A | A-
Program Percentage: 88% | 77%
Overhead: 12% | 23%
Cost to Raise $100: $2 | $13
I’m not sure what’s unfair about this. The Clinton Foundation is larger, has better ratings, wastes fewer resources on overhead, and spends dramatically less money to raise each dollar of foundation revenue.
It appears to me that the comparison between the two compelling favors the Clinton Foundation. I think that our hypothetical international businessman would have to do some gymnastics to conclude that Oxfam is the better choice, especially if that businessman cares about the mission of the Clinton Foundation.
There was no conflict between Ms. Clinton’s role as Secretary of State and her association with the Clinton Foundation, despite the mountain of money and hot air expended by her detractors. She could have declined to be Secretary of State — and that would have been the wrong answer.
I remain convinced that nothing Ms. Clinton could have done differently would have raised fewer questions — different behavior on her part would have resulted in different, not fewer, attacks (because these aren’t “questions”, they are instead attacks).
The attacks on the Clinton Foundation are just more scurrilous, baseless, and dishonest rubbish from the right wing and from those who are unduly influenced by the right wing.
JimC says
Clinton Foundation: 1997. Oxfam: 1942.
So an organization founded 55 years later raises funds at 1/6th the cost because Clinton’s name is attached.
Without attacking CF, we can see why other nonprofits might not like it. (Worth noting, I have no knowledge of anyone at Oxfam resenting the Clinton Foundation; maybe they love it.)
SomervilleTom says
Entities that suffer in head-to-head comparison may well not like the results. So what? How old must a charitable organization be in order to be acceptable? Are you now arguing that an otherwise superlative charitable organization should NOT raise money from someone who is a money magnet?
Is the Muscular Dystrophy Association, with Jerry Lewis as its long-time figure head, preferable (with a 74.29 percent rating and 2 stars) because Jerry Lewis is less appealing to big money donors than Bill Clinton?
This argument makes no sense to me at all.
It seems to me that you are reaching for ways to rationalize the Clinton Derangement Syndrome rather than exploring why our hypothetical international businessman chooses the Clinton Foundation over Oxfam America.
JimC says
You’re overreacting to my point. All I’m saying is that I can understand why nonprofits would resent the Clinton Foundation. (If they do.) I’m not trying to stir up trouble or attack the Foundation. I’ve been defending it throughout this thread.
SomervilleTom says
I understand.
I’m just saying that these arguments really don’t make any sense. In face, they seem to demonstrate the “petitio principii” (assuming the outcome) fallacy. I don’t see why it matters whether non-profits resent the Clinton Foundation.
It seems to me that more closely we look at this, the clear it becomes that the major reason that the Clinton Foundation is attacked is because the right wing has successfully created a visceral and irrational hatred of anything and everything that has the name “Clinton” attached to it.
SomervilleTom says
I know I’m belaboring this, but really — consider the Michael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson’s Research. It has a 92.92 rating, and spends only 10.5% on overhead.
Is this foundation raising funds at a fraction of the cost of Oxfam because Michael J. Fox’s name is attached? Is THAT bad?
Why isn’t the media filled with stories about dishonest and corrupt Michael J. Fox is, because people choose to give to his foundation?
This “argument” doesn’t make any sense at all.
JimC says
And there isn’t a major political party working against him.
SomervilleTom says
Does that make sense to anybody?
The Michael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson’s Research is a jewel, an organization that does marvelous and desperately needed work. Mr. Fox attracts donors because he was a high-profile entertainer loved by millions of Americans.
While I agree with you that if Mr. Fox (or a family member, he has a wife and four children) were to run for public office as a Democrat, the GOP would no doubt make the same baseless attacks that they’ve made against the Clintons.
The point is that it is the “major political party working against him” that is the villain here.
jconway says
I’m broadly with JimC that the Foundation shouldn’t get a pass from the left for a host of reasons. Foundations in general are well designed tax dodges and there should be bans on foreign entities giving to presidential libraries or foundations just like they can’t give to campaigns.
It is a small stain on her human rights/women rights record to have taken Saudi money. But it’s incredulous for the right to be angry about that when Saudi money to the Bush family and their associates through the Carlyle Group led to many more consequential conflicts of interest and her opponent has received more funds and active intelligence from one of our sworn enemies than even Lindbergh did.
You’re being doggedly skeptical JimC like a true journalist, but the foundation issue is used by our mainstream media, even the Times, to make it out to be that both candidates are corrupt when her two scandals are not anywhere on the order of magnitude as Trump’s. Simply put, this edifying and nuanced discussion is not what the media is doing. They are painting a deliberately inaccurate and disproportionate picture.
JimC says
I don’t think the Times does that, but certainly Fox and the rest of the right press does.
jconway says
Trades votes in safe states for votes in swing states. Great way to have your protest vote and ensure another’s isn’t wasted in a state that counts.
JimC says
Unless the law has changed, one thing I remember from 2000, thanks to NaderTrader, was that “vote brokering” is illegal.
Christopher says
…along with enforcement. If you and I agree to trade votes nobody would be the wiser, just so long as there is not coersion involved.