Republican elector resigns rather than vote for Trump

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by PracticalMac, Nov 29, 2016.

  1. PracticalMac macrumors 68030

    PracticalMac

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2009
    Location:
    Houston, TX
  2. rjohnstone macrumors 68040

    rjohnstone

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2007
    Location:
    PHX, AZ.
    #2
    Not a big deal... he will be replaced by an alternate and life will go on.

    Hardcore Republicans have their undies in a serious twist over losing the party base to Trump.
     
  3. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #3
    He should resign anyway for violating the Constitution and applying a religious test as a qualification for office.
     
  4. PracticalMac thread starter macrumors 68030

    PracticalMac

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2009
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    #4
    As I said in OP.

    Depends on how you define "Hardcore Republicans". Those who are religiously centered are in a twist because Trump now represents them.

    And yet a large number of Republicans do apply religious ideals to their candidates.
     
  5. R.Perez macrumors 6502

    R.Perez

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2010
    Location:
    Philadelphia, PA
    #5
    This election was good for the GOP and bad for Democrats. But I believe as does 538, that electing Trump will prove disastrous for the GOP in the long term and good for the democrats in the long run.
     
  6. pdqgp macrumors 68020

    pdqgp

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2010
    #6
    given they were so spot-on with the election you must be pretty confident in that choice too.
     
  7. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #7
    We're talking about a government official here. There's a little more onus on them to adhere to the constitution.
     
  8. PracticalMac thread starter macrumors 68030

    PracticalMac

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2009
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    #8
    Which they should, but have many cases they don't.
     
  9. R.Perez macrumors 6502

    R.Perez

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2010
    Location:
    Philadelphia, PA
    #9
    Here we go again. Their analysis was pretty spot on. They identified weaknesses in areas where Trump won before the election and gave him a 1/3 chance of winning. 1/3 odds are pretty darn good.
     
  10. Plutonius macrumors 603

    Plutonius

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2003
    Location:
    New Hampshire
    #10
    Other then this, can you list the other cases ?
     
  11. pdqgp macrumors 68020

    pdqgp

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2010
    #11
    There site showed Clinton Trouncing.

    Monday, Nov. 7, at 6:15 p.m.
    Clinton 69.4%Trump 30.6%

    Tuesday, Nov. 8, at 9:00 a.m. EST
    Clinton 71.6%Trump 28.4%
     
  12. R.Perez macrumors 6502

    R.Perez

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2010
    Location:
    Philadelphia, PA
    #12
    I don't think you understand probability.
     
  13. pdqgp macrumors 68020

    pdqgp

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2010
    #13
    I think it's pretty clear how many electoral votes they predicted, which states they predicted and the chances shown.

    2016 Election Forecast  FiveThirtyEight - Mozilla Firefox_2016-11-29_13-11-30.jpg 2016 Election Forecast  FiveThirtyEight - Mozilla Firefox_2016-11-29_13-12-05.jpg
     
  14. PracticalMac thread starter macrumors 68030

    PracticalMac

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2009
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    #14
    Sorry, meant in general, not just the EC (I think this is only case for EC)
     
  15. R.Perez macrumors 6502

    R.Perez

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2010
    Location:
    Philadelphia, PA
    #15
    And a roughly 30% chance is pretty good odds, all things considered. If you had to pay $1000 for a 30% chance of winning $1,000,000, would you take it? WI, PA and MI are all light blue on the map. OH is light red. 538 clearly said many times that if any one of WI, PA or MI goes red, then all three would likely end up red. Again, do you fundamentally understand probability?

     
  16. ucfgrad93 macrumors P6

    ucfgrad93

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2007
    Location:
    Colorado
    #16
    Is he a government official? The article doesn't mention that he holds any government office. As far as I know, electors are members of the party, not government.
     
  17. LizKat macrumors 68040

    LizKat

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Location:
    Catskill Mountains
    #17
    You don't have to give a darn about polls to understand that the GOP has undone themselves by acceding to this nominee, and in helping in any way to elect him. They may hope for forgiveness in now trying to guide his cabinet picks into an ultimate shape that does not resemble a bullseye for editorial cartoonists and deadly adversaries alike.

    One can see how the 2018 elections might shape up even before the 114th Congress is sworn in. Mr. Trump's promises to his base are largely unfulfillable or else unconstitutional. That he has already done 180º turns on some positions may enrage his primary season base, and general election voters from the "left-behind" as well. By 2018 the ostensible mission to "drain the swamp in Washington, DC" will long since have been debunked, and the real mission revealed as another payload being delivered to our oligarchies. Those guys have some righteous rafts in that swamp. Or are they oil rigs? Whatever, they persist past any populist expectations this time around, that's for sure.

    Maybe even now there are articles of impeachment in draft mode. Far be it from me to know their foundation but I am sure the GOP can redeem itself by due diligence in research and discovery. For them to impeach one who has only pretended to be of them might even save their bacon in 2018, who knows. It's not like the populist message of 2016 has completely escaped any elected official, so bipartisan deals may solve some seat-retention issues for both parties.

    I am nearly done thinking enough rough edges can be sanded off this guy to make him fit for office, for long. Maybe while the ink dries on the bill of particulars for his removal. I have wanted his incoming presidency to succeed for the sake of the nation but I begin to think that can only be via his resignation in favor of Mr. Pence.

    Mr. Pence's ideas on social issues are repugnant to me for the most part, but the guy seems stable, does have an adequate sense of how power is distributed to the branches of US government works, and possesses a sense of decorum required of the leader of a superpower. He also seems to understand which parts of the platform his running mate riffed on are worth pursuing in bipartisan negotiation.

    Good enough, Pence, compared to Mr. Trump, who seems not even to want to assume his proper role in the incoming adminstration. With every day as more of his unsuitability is revealed (perhaps even to himself?), Trump's behavior becomes less presidential and more like that of someone who thought he was picked to star in a play and found out he's in the chorus line. He was not picked for a chorus line, he was picked for President. Only he really thinks it's beneath him to be advised by his party on Cabinet choices. Why he's obsessed to the point of making late night tweets and resentful, dramatic flourishes over his media coverage is beyond my comprehension. The Fourth Estate has their tasks and he has his. He imagines they must fawn over him. That's his problem, not theirs to resolve. And, he can't do it.

    I had expected more of Trump in this transition, because he himself said he'd be a different person if he won. He has won, but he's not a different person. That person is not going to help the Republican Party down the line. Maybe they've forgotten he more or less disavowed them back during the campaign season. He hasn't forgotten. And they still don't know what he is yet, because he hasn't sprung it on himself yet. How can this go well for the GOP?

    With a glance back at the thread topic's central notion: why wouldn't an elector or two resign rather than grapple with an against-conscience pledge to vote for this guy as Trump's conflicts of interest and bizarre approach to his duties continue to surface? Not all the Texas electors were originally pledged to Mr. Trump, so it should not surprise anyone that at least one now asks to be excused and replaced by someone willing to cast that vote in his place. It is unusual, though. I'd take it as the edge of a message if I were in charge of reading tea leaves and other after-election clues from Texans who are members of the GOP's electoral machinery.

    Fortunately, it's Reince Priebus who gets to decode all that stuff, for the time being. After January 20th, ol' Reince just has to buckle up for the ride he's signed up for in the White House with Trump, and let Texas ponder its fate with this new President who has threatened to bust up the NAFTA that pretty much fuels the Texas economy. I wonder if they have any horse whisperers left in Texas. Reince might not be actually be up to breaking this bronc by himself.
     
  18. MarkusL macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2014
    #18
    Well, he's from Texas after all, which has a state constitution that forbids religious tests for holding public office and then immediately turns around and specifies a religious test for holding public office.

     
  19. LizKat macrumors 68040

    LizKat

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Location:
    Catskill Mountains
    #19
  20. VulchR macrumors 68020

    VulchR

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2009
    Location:
    Scotland
    #20
    This elector is doing what he is supposed to do - to avoid voting for a populist who he feels is not qualified for the Presidency. Actually I'd prefer that he change his vote, but as they say, the ink stains the printer's hand. There will be others perhaps that will be faithless electors, for the electors take their job very seriously (perhaps more so than people in Congress).
     
  21. BoneDaddy Suspended

    BoneDaddy

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2015
    Location:
    Texas
    #21
    As they should. This country was founded on judea christian principles. A large number of democrats ALSO apply religious ideals to thier candidates.
     
  22. VulchR macrumors 68020

    VulchR

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2009
    Location:
    Scotland
    #22
    Just remember that many of the first European settlers were religious fanatics who were kicked out of their home countries or fled their home countries for fear of their lives (fleeing from other Christians, I might add). Not sure if we should keep looking to the past, particularly when the past was ugly.
     
  23. BoneDaddy Suspended

    BoneDaddy

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2015
    Location:
    Texas
    #23
    I disagree. I beleive we should look at the past, no matter how ugly. If we hide from our mistakes, whatever they may be or whatever one may beleive they are, we "are doomed to repeat them".
     
  24. lowendlinux Contributor

    lowendlinux

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2014
    Location:
    North Country (way upstate NY)
    #24
    Those mistakes of the past are why were have a secular government with not state religion..
     
  25. MarkusL macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2014
    #25
    I agree partly with what you're getting at, but it should be noted that back in the day it didn't take much to be a religious extremist. For example, when the emigration from Sweden to America reached its peak, the state church was a branch of government dedicated to controlling and snooping on the population. As an example, during this time it was illegal for a group of people to read the Bible together and discuss its contents, unless a priest was in the room. Anyone who had any kind of individual feelings about their religion that did not conform exactly to the dogma were persecuted and would have started looking around for a solution. Most of the emigration was for economic reasons, but the large numbers also normalized emigration and made it look attractive for anyone who had other reasons, e.g. religious persecution.
     

Share This Page