Republican Third Party Candidate
It’s no secret that there are national Republican bigwigs that oppose the Party’s current frontrunner in the GOP Presidential primary, Donald Trump. I’ll use the term “Conservative donors” because Politico uses the term in this instance whereupon certain individuals see the Donald’s nomination as all but certain and seek a logistically certain third party alternative. To that end they actually hired a Republican consulting firm to see if that idea is more than fantasy. The firm in Florida reports the logistical possibility but I know it amounts to a fantasy more than potential reality.
“All this research has to happen before March 16, when inevitably Trump is the nominee, so that we have a plan in place,” a source familiar with the discussions said. March 16 is the day after the GOP primary in Florida, a winner-take-all contest that Marco Rubio supporters have identified as a must-win to stop Trump’s early momentum… The document, stamped “confidential,” was authored by staff at Data Targeting, a Republican firm based in Gainesville, Fla. The memo notes that “it is possible to mount an independent candidacy but [it] will require immediate action on the part of this core of key funding and strategic players.”… The research points to Texas and North Carolina as early tests for running an independent, conservative candidate against Trump and the Democratic nominee. The candidate would need to gather over 79,900 valid petition signatures in Texas by May 9 and over 89,000 in North Carolina by June 9. Only two other states have thresholds that high, and gathering petitions can be an expensive and time-consuming process. What’s more, the Texas signatures would have to come entirely from voters who did not vote in this year’s Democratic and Republican primaries.
The document itself fails to mention various state’s Sore Loser laws, which forbids a former candidate from placing on a state’s ballot for office, if (s)he had just lost a contest for that same office in the primary of a different party that same cycle. These laws prevent candidates such as Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, and others from seeking a rematch should they invariably lose. (For future reference I may refer to the potential interchangeable alternative of one or the other as either Cruzio or Crubio wherever such is appropriate). Indeed the document exists because Crubio’s loss now seems inevitable and Kasich and Carson seems almost below consideration. In fact I literally forgot Carson’s name for about 11 seconds before I could finish that sentence. Given that I am endorsing John Kasich one would think that would cause some cognitive dissonance in me, except that as I endorsed I remained fully aware that the potential is only a longshot potential and relies on a political strategy that has not succeeded in my lifetime. The irony about sore loser laws impeding a mainstream conservative alternative to a Republican Trump candidacy is that back when the RNC prodded the Donald to sign the unenforceable loyalty pledge it was actually the states’ sore losers laws which would prevent him from landing on the ballot and presenting a third party threat should he lose the primary. Now that Trumpmania actually could win overtake the party a third party salvation is limited the same way. That means that Senator Cruz’s disciples cannot raise their savior three days after numerous primaries kill his chances.
The possibility of a conservative third party alternative has massaged many people feeling stark terror in the face of Trump’s near certain ascension. There are in fact two groups opposing the Trump, one of which being entrenched interests most often attached with the misnomer of “the Establishment” and the other being the ideologues, usually mislabeled “the base”, “Tea Party”, “conservatives”. However. The document was apparently commissioned by wealthy members of the second group. I usually refer to the former as Eisenhower Republicans and the latter as Bob Taft Republicans, although that may not entirely be accurate in this instance. (I keep promising to explain the historical distinction). Eisenhower Republicans and the RNC, “establishment” forces want to divorce Donald Trump from the Republican brand because Trump uses Buchananite language and white nationalist flavors to attract attention and the national Republican figures as well as statewide counterparts have attempted to eject, ignore, and suppress xenophobic language and ideas from the brand as long as I have involved and likely longer. The mission the document refers to includes “identifying a candidate who is immediately viable… ideologically compatible with the disenchanted electorate”. Just whom exactly do they see as compatible with the electorate? What ideology do they perceive from or assign the voters in a general election? Implicitly these donors believe that ideology is a factor as much a factor in viability and their issue with the Donald is as much ideology as anything. The second group of Trump opposition are ideologues and they see the Donald as a threat not because of any of his flaws or imperfections but because he merely is not conservative. From a philosophical standpoint Donald Trump is not a conservative in any way. Yet the people that support him are enamored with him to the point where ideology may no longer be persuasive to them. I can see something good in that.
It’s funny though that the third party candidate is now a mythical solution to save our party rather than the feared scourge to destroy it. Since 1992 when Ross Perot shaved enough votes off the top to take the Presidency from George Bush 41 and hand it to Bill Clinton, “third party” is uttered like the possibility of ants, Like a threat to the foundation that needs to be warded off or feared. Since Rick Perry’s indictment was officially withdrawn and his name cleared people have tossed his name as the guy to save us from Trump. Rick Perry says he is considering it, in response to a tweet by national radio pundit Erick Erickson; Rick Perry will not be President. Other unrealistic people floated the rumor that Justin Amash could run against and defeat GOP nominee Donald Trump and the Democrat nominee. I don’t have a problem with unrealistic and absurd means of combating Trump as the year goes on, as I’m not accountable to devise a realistic means to extinguish the Trumpster Fire. The loudest people that promote third party solutions do so under a flawed political philosophy that they teach others. Erickson promotes this vile philosophy. This vile philosophy suggests that the Presidential nominee is of great meaning symbolically and ideologically. That our nominee is of great relevance politically and this is a narrative that’s most useful for a national talking head. I deliberately misuse “politics is local” when I say that Erickson violates the axiom. The fact is that we’re each responsible for our own ideology, philosophy. Most day to day politics and the most relevant politics are local, county, and state politics. By and large, outside of purpose towards getting out the vote for the elections down-ticket, the Presidency is mostly irrelevant to actual politics and policy; this is by design. That Erickson and others might be right about the significance of whom is occupying the Oval Office means that a corruption has occurred in our nation, and national talking heads are naturally in favor of that corruption.
The nominee of a Party is generally seen as the Party leader and his ideas representative of that of the Party. To an extent we take this for granted and treat this as the truth. This is our mistake. I am a Republican and a Republican for a reason and I won’t be chased from the Party because of Donald Trump. That said, a viable third party alternative for the party faithful to unite behind is fine idea utterly wasted because people took too damn long. To say otherwise is just air and it’s moralizing. As a conservative and a Republican I have the option to not vote for the top of the ticket. That’s my choice. I needn’t make a big deal over my largely symbolic decision.
Next? Chris Christie endorsed Donald Trump
After that? Fleeing the Party