Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
I Thought This Deserved a Post of Its Own
In the thread for our recent Harvard Lunch Club Podcast — the Rigged Podcast — we reverted again, with the inevitability of Groundhog Day, to the eternal Trump versus #NeverTrump argument. I thought it worthwhile to recapitulate the discussion. Apologies to those who have reached the stage of nausea in this issue. In the podcast my partner Todd Feinburg and I discuss the recent Victor Davis Hanson article advocating a vote for Trump for conservatives. We both think that it is a no-brainer and we both think that, even had we not been for Trump since long ago (say we had supported Rubio) we would have recognized that bruised egos aside there was really only one choice … which is essentially what VDH had to say (though he said it very well indeed).
In response, member rebark makes the following observation:
I always find it remarkable how foreign and mystifying the ideas of Never Trump people are to the HLC hosts. The utter bafflement with which they confront the fact that people looked at the same facts that they did and reached a different conclusion.
My first inclination is to blame my own side for failing to explain itself well, but there has been so much ink spilled on the subject that I can’t help but wonder whether there is a certain willful blindness to their approach. For the tired old argument of “just admit you’re for Hillary” to be trotted out requires an astonishing level of misunderstanding.
To put it simply: I do not see a lesser evil. I doubt that there is an iota of difference between us in terms of how negatively we perceive Hillary – she will be terrible for the country and terrible for conservatism. Trump might implement the occasional conservative policy, but he will destroy what little reputation conservatism has. I believe he would do at best a mediocre job as President that would be spun into such a disaster by the media that his election would pave the way for even worse Leftist ideologues down the road. I can’t tell you which is worse, and so I can only tell you that I don’t want to have supported either.
I hope they have some good conversations at tomorrow’s Ricochet debate watching event.
Member Eugene Kriegsmann weighs in with:
Michael, in response to your question to Rebark [what did he think of the VDH article?] I went over to NR and read Dr. Hanson’s post. There is little new in it. He had held this position since the majority of NR editors and writers put together their anti-Trump screed. Hanson’s argument really comes down to what I have read over and over on this site, that Trump is bad, but Hillary is worse. Hillary will do terrible damage to the country.
That well may be true. There is, however, another possibility, that Hillary will be essentially spayed politically by a Republican dominated congress, and that, given her apparently fragile health and the incredible demands of the office, that she will likely not even make it through one term, much less two.
On the other hand, we have Trump whose commitment to our country is so minimal that he would destroy not just his own chances of achieving office, but those of every other Republican running this year. How do we trust such a person with the most powerful office in the world and with the future of this country?
The problem for me is, I don’t see any difference between them. I could never vote for Hillary, nor could I give Trump a vote that would confirm all he wants to believe about himself, that he actually should be President of the United States. It is a choice that I simply refuse to make. I think I will write in Pence for President.
And, forgive me for taking the last word, I said this:
Rebark and Eugene, I have only this to say. Make a choice! Whatever you can say about how difficult it is to evaluate whether Hillary’s Presidency or Trump’s Presidency will be worse, it is blatantly obvious that they will be different. Very different! So forget the past. Forget the agony of what could have been. Think through the problem as it confronts you today. What are the odds from your perspective of different possible futures with Trump and with Hillary? Evaluate the distributions, apply risk analysis, do the algebra and reach a conclusion and vote. Don’t whine about how it’s hard to decide. Don’t withhold your vote because you are angry at what happened in February. The future lies ahead. You have only two options (eh?). Pick one.
Is this not, my Ricochetti friends, the bottom line?
See you in NYC tonight!
Published in General
Well, it’s good enough for Epstein…
I have been out putting 50+ miles on my racing bike this morning. Had to take advantage of a brief period of dry in what looks like a long wet fall and winter coming up. Anyway, by the time I got home there were more than 50 comments, many of which say all that needs to be said. I would just like to say, Michael, I have enormous respect for you. You are unquestionably a man of integrity and principles. I think on this issue we will remain forever on opposite sides, but I imagine that in the vast realm of political thought that this will very likely be our only area of disagreement. I would love to join you at the meet up in Manhattan, but 3000 miles is a bit further than I care to go for a beer. If you ever get out to the Pacific Northwest, I would be more than happy to buy you a drink and discuss this issue in person.
I wasn’t asking you, but thanks for the personal insult. I don’t plan on voting for any presidential candidate, but I will vote down ballot to “save the Republic”.
The spouse of a patient had an odd cancer metastatic to the bones. He was offered two distinct treatment regimens and chose neither, instead going to a naturopath of sorts. He’s dead now. Of course he’d have died anyway but maybe 3-10 years instead of 5 months. Choices, choices.
Donald Trump just came into my state (Wisconsin) and bashed the best and brightest Republican in the state. He and his followers have been doing this across the country, trying to drag down and destroy Republican congressmen who have not grovelled sufficiently. They want to “burn it all down.” So tell me again why I should feel loyalty to this man. Because he’s the Republican? He’s destroying the Republican Party. Because he’s going to accomplish so much? Even if I thought he means what he says (and I don’t), how is he going to do that without a majority in the house and senate, which he has been actively sabotaging?
As it is, he’s headed for a landslide loss, not because of the NeverTrumpers, but because he is an appallingly bad candidate. And he will drag other Republican candidates down with him. Because of him we will have Hillary in the White House, and she very likely will have majorities in congress. He is the only candidate who could not beat Hillary and who did not deserve to beat Hillary. This whole campaign has been a wrong-headed fiasco.
Mathematically, this is incorrect.
Say that, on election day, Trump is up by 500 votes in Florida, which has 501 #NeverTrump voters. If they all cast their vote for Hillary, she wins. If they all cast their votes for Johnson, or McMullin, or Mickey Mouse, Trump wins.
You may not find this a sufficiently large difference to matter, but it is very much a difference.
There is also a powerful first mover advantage in an unsettled legal frontier to an outfit willing to violate existing legal standards, gain incredible market cap and then … LAWYER UP. Sometimes that first mover fails (See Napster), but sometimes they reap the windfall.
Was he a committed conservative DocJay? And did he make the decision after Trump won the nomination? Life if never as binary as it seems!
That’s just silly logic. Only the chattering classes use that.
I think Trump will be worse in the long run, but I can’t vote for Hillary, so I will vote third party.
It worth pointing out that since my vote for the lesser of two evils would go to Hillary, by denying Hillary a vote, I’m actually helping Trump.
As is this:
The fact that you still think this is about “bruised egos” proves your analysis to be utterly worthless.
That’s a bit cold. I know this is an anonymous internet forum, but I think DocJay is talking about a real human being.
I ask again: If Trump were a Clinton plant sent to destroy the Republican Party, as the conspiracy theory says, what would he be doing differently?
I still can’t think of anything.
Question:
If I leave the “POTUS” part of the ballot blank, and only vote down ticket…I am hoping that the distinction will somehow be registered someplace as “a pox on both your houses.” Will it?
A bunch of cops I talked to today said they were all voting for BLANK too. I don’t know if they actually will, but will anyone notice if there are, say, a hundred thousand blank-at-the-top ballots?
At this point, all #AlwaysTrumps wants is validation from #NeverTrump. It’s not going to happen. How many other ways does it need to be said, that Trump is not conservative, is not a good human being, represents terrible policy positions, and doesn’t have the temperament to be President?
Instead #NeverTrump has worked on the down ballot GOP races. Some of us will vote for McMullin, Johnson, or Castle. What we are ultimately planning for though, is the upcoming fight against the inevitable Clinton Presidency.
We aren’t now, nor are we ever going to validate the Trumpkins primary votes, or give them cover for their choice. You people picked this fool, and whether he succeeds or falls is based on him.
We lost this election the moment the orange clown became the candidate. We aren’t going to pat you on the back and tell you good job for elevating him, he cost us this very winnable election.
Only if it’s reported. Which is why most people are writing in McMullin or voting for Johnson so it’s shown. I’ve never heard of a election where the media talked about “blank”” votes.
Not that there is anything wrong with not voting at the top of ballot, I just don’t think it would get much play, if that’s the reason you are doing it.
I did not pick him he is what we have.
I don’t want validation, I want admission from the NeverTrumps they would rather Clinton win than Trump. What is amazing is the posturing NeverTrumps go to, to deny the simple fact.
Agreed except for one thing. Who the heck is Castle?
But somehow, do not evaluate the likelihood that one’s vote will actually be decisive between the two leads in one’s own state, correct?
Because I have done the math. And the math in my state gives me vanishingly little reason to believe my vote would be decisive between the two lead candidates. Knowing that, it makes more sense to use my vote for other purposes.
I have been open to reconsidering if the the best available data showed a close race in my state, but it hasn’t. If God zapped my state tomorrow and suddenly my state became a tossup, I would still be open to reconsidering, but I can predict with a fair amount of confidence that God is unlikely to zap my state in that particular way between now and election day.
Lighten up,
Nancy. It’s not personal.Mathematically, it is a half a vote the wrong way. That is, if the margin is one, it takes two abstentions to equal one defection.
It is certainly not zero.
We are not going to admit what is not true. Stop demanding that we do.
But it is true. If you want Trump to lose, you want Clinton to win. They both cannot lose, one will win, one will lose. Wanting a Trump loss means wanting a Clinton win.
“I don’t want Trump to be President” means “I want Clinton to be President” or “I want Trump to be President, LESS than I want Clinton to be President”.
There are only two options here. It does not matter who you vote for, of if your state is sewn up one way or the other. In your heart, you are wanting one of these two people to win more than the other. Strident NeverTrump wants him to lose. Ergo, they want Clinton to win.
What if you don’t care because you think they are equally bad?
Constitution Party candidate.
Sure, yeah, that’s exactly what I said in my post, eh?
It does not matter, one has to be better than the other in some way. To say they are equally bad, in perfect balance, is not being realistic. If you want Trump to lose, you want CLinton to win. Period. There is no other option. If you want them both to lose, you are not being rational.
You know my view. I think Clinton causes more harm short term and Trump causes more harm long term. You tell me the right discount rate and I will tell you which one I think is worse on a present value basis.
I’m still not voting for Clinton, so by not voting for Clinton I am helping Trump.
I no longer remember which one, but one of the podcasts called that an “undervote” and suggested it would be noticed.
I’m planning for third party or write in at the top of the ticket, then voting for the Republicans in the down-ballot races. I’m in Maryland, where Clinton has 30 points minimum on Trump, so I feel no sense of internal angst over this failure to vote the party line (for a party I’m not a registered member of, because I owe them or something).
Of course – traitorous turncoat alert – if my state was in play, I’d probably vote Clinton, swearing and slamming things around all the while, then coming home to drink a fifth of scotch. Among my long list of reasons, Trump has brought an ugly white nationalist movement out from the woodwork that I do not want validated with his victory. I’ve never wished more that they could both lose, because whichever one of them wins, *we* certainly lose.