Over 70 Republicans say, "Fuck it, Cut Trump" in open Letter to RNC.

[OmniConsUme]

[QUOTE]More than 70 Republicans have signed an open letter to Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus urging him to stop spending any money to help Donald Trump win in November and shift those contributions to Senate and House races.
The letter comes as a number of Republican senators and high-profile GOP national security officials have come forward saying they cannot vote for Trump.
Story Continued Below

“We believe that Donald Trump’s divisiveness, recklessness, incompetence, and record-breaking unpopularity risk turning this election into a Democratic landslide, and only the immediate shift of all available RNC resources to vulnerable Senate and House races will prevent the GOP from drowning with a Trump-emblazoned anchor around its neck,” states a draft of the letter obtained by POLITICO. “This should not be a difficult decision, as Donald Trump’s chances of being elected president are evaporating by the day.”

[/QUOTE]

[URL="http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/republicans-urge-rnc-cut-funds-trump-226918"]http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/republicans-urge-rnc-cut-funds-trump-226918[/URL]

Edit: Actual Politico article.

[Croatsky]

So much for Republican party unity.

[l337k1ll4]

You did it to yourselves, idiots, no turning back now.

[Glaber]

[QUOTE=l337k1ll4;50869718]You did it to yourselves, idiots, no turning back now.[/QUOTE]

With trump or without trump, this is still true.

[sb27]

I just find it funny how the Republicans had to sit through eight years of a Democrat President, then as soon as they could take their shot for the Presidency, the next chance after that being four more years away, they fuck it up completely. I bet most elected Republicans are wishing they had the Democrat's superdelegate system, and that they didn't have as many contenders for the nomination as they had.

[bitches]

70 republicans? Are these legislators, or is this an article about 70 nobodies that don't represent the overall picture of America?

edit: see 2 posts down

[BuffaloHops]

[QUOTE=sb27;50869784]I just find it funny how the Republicans had to sit through eight years of a Democrat President, then as soon as they could take their shot for the Presidency, the next chance after that being four more years away, they fuck it up completely. I bet most elected Republicans are wishing they had the Democrat's superdelegate system, and that they didn't have as many contenders for the nomination as they had.[/QUOTE]

It's ironic; Superdelegates fucked over Democrats, but could have saved Republicans.

[bitches]

[quote]Former Sen. Gordon Humphrey of New Hampshire and former Reps. Chris Shays of Connecticut, Tom Coleman of Missouri and Vin Weber of Minnesota are among the Republicans lending their name to the letter. Close to 20 of the co-signers are former RNC staffers, including Mindy Finn (former RNC chief digital strategist), Christine Iverson Gunderson (former RNC press secretary), Virginia Hume Onufer (former RNC deputy press secretary), Beth Miller (former RNC field communications division director), Heather Layman (former deputy press secretary), B. Jay Cooper (former RNC communications director under four chairmen) and Patrick Ruffini (former RNC ecampaign director).[/quote]

Ah, so this is about party management.

I totally agree, though; they did this to themselves by teaching their constituents for 8 solid years to abandon reason in favor of anti-Obama fervor. It was all too easy for Trump to pander into it.

[sb27]

[QUOTE=BlindSniper17;50869885]It's ironic; Superdelegates fucked over Democrats, but could have saved Republicans.[/QUOTE]

To be fair for the Democrats, opinion polling had consistently shown a Clinton lead over Sanders, even from as early as before the primaries. Clinton would have won the nomination anyways, regardless of whether superdelegates weren't a thing, if a direct popular vote was used instead of the delegate system, or if the DNC were pure saints of accountability and transparency.

[t]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/57/Nationwide_polls_for_the_2016_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries.svg/1024px-Nationwide_polls_for_the_2016_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries.svg.png[/t]

[smurfy]

[QUOTE=BlindSniper17;50869885]It's ironic; Superdelegates fucked over Democrats, but could have saved Republicans.[/QUOTE]

People keep saying this but I don't see how either part is true. Superdelegates didn't determine the outcome of the Democratic primary, and don't seem to have stopped them from winning the election. And if there had been superdelegates in the GOP and they'd blocked Trump, there would have been millions of pissed off Trump supporters abandoning the GOP, and a very possible Trump independent run that would split the vote and guarantee a Clinton victory.

You could argue that it might do less long-term damage to the GOP if they'd have stopped Trump though, but what will happen to the party after 2016 is just speculation at this point.

[bitches]

[QUOTE=sb27;50869944]To be fair for the Democrats, opinion polling had consistently shown a Clinton lead over Sanders, even from as early as before the primaries. Clinton would have won the nomination anyways, regardless of whether superdelegates weren't a thing, if a direct popular vote was used instead of the delegate system, or if the DNC were pure saints of accountability and transparency.

[t]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/57/Nationwide_polls_for_the_2016_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries.svg/1024px-Nationwide_polls_for_the_2016_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries.svg.png[/t][/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=smurfy;50869967]People keep saying this but I don't see how either part is true. Superdelegates didn't determine the outcome of the Democratic primary, and don't seem to have stopped them from winning the election. And if there had been superdelegates in the GOP and they'd blocked Trump, there would have been millions of pissed off Trump supporters abandoning the GOP, and a very possible Trump independent run that would split the vote and guarantee a Clinton victory.

You could argue that it might do less long-term damage to the GOP if they'd have stopped Trump though, but what will happen to the party after 2016 is just speculation at this point.[/QUOTE]

When Clinton and Sanders were almost 50/50 in the popular vote, how can you claim that Superdelegates and their role in the news media played no role in the outcome?

[smurfy]

[url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/gop-donors-fearful-of-trump-fueled-electoral-rout-direct-big-money-down-ballot/2016/08/11/bb1a2826-5fda-11e6-af8e-54aa2e849447_story.html]Interesting article[/url] about how Trump's shitty big-dollar fundraising means that GOP congressional candidates have a lot more money to play with this year, because they're getting all the cash that would usually go to the presidential race.

[QUOTE=bitches;50869983]When Clinton and Sanders were almost 50/50 in the popular vote, how can you claim that Superdelegates and their role in the news media played no role in the outcome?[/QUOTE]

No one's arguing that they had no effect, but the fact remains that Democratic primary voters chose Clinton as their nominee and we can only speculate as to why that happened or how things might otherwise have been different. I haven't seen any evidence that Sanders would have won if there had been no superdelegates. I do think that superdelegates erode trust in the Democratic primary system and are essentially pointless because they'd self-destruct the party if they ever actually chose the nominee.

[sb27]

[QUOTE=bitches;50869983]When Clinton and Sanders were almost 50/50 in the popular vote, how can you claim that Superdelegates and their role in the news media played no role in the outcome?[/QUOTE]

But they were never 50/50? Did you even look at that graph I posted? At the closest, Clinton still had an approval rating roughly 6% higher. Sure in some polls they were evenly matched or Sanders might have had the higher rating, but those were outliers in the long term trend (see the coloured lines).

I wouldn't blame you for being led on by the strong confirmation bias here on Facepunch. Every time Sanders scored better in an opinion poll against Hillary, those polls were cherry-picked and posted here as if definitive proof that Sanders was winning. And I sincerely doubt that so many opinion polls could be rigged without at least one person spilling the beans.

[Download]

If you had asked me a year ago I would have have said the Republicans were going to steamroll the election because of how many people hated Clinton. Instead, Trump came along and fucked the whole thing up. He's so terrible he's making diehard Republicans who froth at the mouth at the mere mention of her name vote for her or abstain.

[Pops]

and this is why i'm choosing not to vote this year.

[Octavius]

d

[sb27]

[QUOTE=Pops;50870321]and this is why i'm choosing not to vote this year.[/QUOTE]

So what, you're just going to give the middle finger to all of the candidates for the other elections on the same ballot paper? You're going to throw away your right to vote in local, state and Congressional elections as well?

[Pops]

[QUOTE=sb27;50870457]So what, you're just going to give the middle finger to all of the candidates for the other elections on the same ballot paper? You're going to throw away your right to vote in local, state and Congressional elections as well?[/QUOTE]

hmm, seeing as how i can already tell you that the currently elected will most certainly retain their positions, yeah.

[sb27]

[QUOTE=Octavius;50870344]He's saying it was a close race and something like super delegates inflating Hillary's inevitability had an effect. This is a fact. Now, we obviously can't know the size of this effect, but it's real and certainly influenced the results of the election. Would Sanders have won if they didn't exist? Maybe, maybe not. We don't know, because they do exist. What I do know, though, is that their existence and influence is ridiculous, no matter how large or small their impact was.[/QUOTE]

It's hard to measure their impact, although I wouldn't say that their influence is ridiculous. But because of how hard it is to measure that impact, it's ludicrous to suggest that they rigged the election or that Sanders would have won if they didn't exist. We just don't know. What we do know is that Hillary has always had a higher approval rating.

[editline]12th August 2016[/editline]

[QUOTE=Pops;50870481]hmm, seeing as how i can already tell you that the currently elected will most certainly retain their positions, yeah.[/QUOTE]

Great, because your abstention is only helping to keep them incumbent. Are you aware of what positions are up for election anyways?

[Pops]

yes i'm aware of my local stuff that's up for election. they're all the same jackasses that have been running around the last few terms and will continue to do so until the public mood around here changes again.

[Octavius]

d

[WoodenSpoon]

Maybe we're all just getting played hard af and behind the curtains the Clintons are using Trump to wreck havoc on the RNC to guarantee Hillary a win. I'd definitely be willing to do something like that as a wealthy politician because why the fuck not, I'd laugh about it over dinner and wine *clink*.

:tinfoil:

[Pops]

[QUOTE=WoodenSpoon;50871292]Maybe we're all just getting played hard af and behind the curtains the Clintons are using Trump to wreck havoc on the RNC to guarantee Hillary a win. I'd definitely be willing to do something like that as a wealthy politician because why the fuck not, I'd laugh about it over dinner and wine *clink*.

:tinfoil:[/QUOTE]

I'd love it.