Utah is leading the way for republicans who can’t stand Donald Trump AND Hillary Clinton. A recent Deseret News poll showed Trump, Clinton, and relative unknown Evan McMullin in a statistical tie! This poll took the statisticians at FiveThirtyEight.com by surprise, and they promised “We’re going to be adding McMullin to our model in Utah — give us a day or two on that. But in the meantime, we could also really use another poll or two of Utah to confirm or contradict this result.” They also posted an article describing McMullin’s longshot to win the White House. (Incidentally, a new Monmouth University poll put Trump ahead of Clinton 34-25% with McMullin coming in at 20%.)
Many have asked what’s up with Utah, a solidly republican state. Jake Tapper of CNN asked “When did Mormons leaders became stronger in Jesus Christ than Christian leaders?” and an Evangelical explains why! (skip ahead to the 3:00 mark if you want to hear the question and answer.)
https://youtu.be/IB3YSx6gtNU?t=198
It’s truly amazing to me that so many republicans were so concerned about Bill Clinton’s affair with Monica Lewinsky, but now that Trump is their guy, suddenly these comments are brushed off. I have always been a Jon Huntsman fan, but was ashamed of him when he endorsed Trump back in May. After last week’s audiotape of Trump discussing trying to have sex with a married woman, Huntsman, along with governor Gary Herbert, Utah Congressmen Jason Chaffetz and Chris Stewart pulled their endorsements of Trump. Better late than never, but what were these “leaders” thinking in endorsing Trump in the first place? (Utah Senator Orrin Hatch is still endorsing Trump. At least Congresswoman Mia Love and Senator Mike Lee have refused to endorse Trump all along–Mike Lee said Trump “scares him.”)
So who do you vote for if you can’t stand both Trump and Clinton? Could BYU graduate Evan McMullin fulfill the White Horse prophecy by denying both Clinton and Trump the presidency and getting elected in the House? I seriously doubt it. Whom will you be voting for? Why?
Wheat & Tares 
If you’ve been keeping up with the emil scandal/releases you realize that Hillary belongs in prison not in the White House.
Here’s another poll from CBS news that is even more sobering than the Monmouth poll. I think Trump is safe in Utah and it is Hillary who needs to worry about finishing third.
I’m voting for Hillary Clinton. She’s the only candidate on the ballot, by a wide margin, with the experience, temperament, and intelligence to be POTUS. Based on reliable, unbiased poll results, it’s almost certain she’ll win the national election November 8. Regardless which candidate you support, be sure to vote November 8. Every vote counts.
I’m probably voting for Russell Moore.
There’s an insightful PBS Frontline show that covers the biographies of Clinton and Trump from childhood to present day. You can watch it online for free. If the link doesn’t work, just do a search on pbs frontline choice 2016.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/the-choice-2016/
The Washington Times Seven more Hillary Clinton scandals exposed by WikiLeaks
1. Clinton Foundation donors expected “benefits in return for gifts.”
2. Obama’s Cabinet picked by Citigroup executive — during the bailout — a month before the election.
3. Mrs. Clinton tried to save a profitable Wall Street speech before her campaign launch.
4. Qatar, an Islamic State funder, gave former President Bill Clinton $1 million for his birthday.
5. Mrs. Clinton team poll-tested attacks on Obama’s Muslim heritage.
6. Mrs. Clinton discussed hiding emails from Mr. Obama, then deleted them.
7. Mrs. Clinton’s spokesman urged her to lie to the public on whether she sent classified information.
If Utah elects Trump that’s not going to be good for the image of the church outside the US…
as an aside: I hadn’t had you down as an anarchist before this year Howard, but what with your comments on my Brexit post, and your comments on this and other posts on the US election, that has to be conclusion.
If Utah elects Trump that’s not going to be good for the image of the church outside the US…
Yeah, I’m pretty sure it’s going to be overshadowed by evangelicals electing Trump.
Thanks for the link Lastlemming. Not sure why people are thumbs down there, unless it is simply they don’t like what the poll says. I appreciate the comment.
I agree that Utah voting for Trump would not help the image of the Church. They have already been suffering the last few years and that will not help. I see only one real candidate this year-Hillary.
I’m sure the Thumbs Down on Last Lemming is booing the conclusion that Hillary is likely to come in third. Our readers are 2/3 for Hillary, as am I, and I’ve already voted. I disagree with anon’s comment that everyone should get out there and vote. If you have to put on a tin foil hat to go outside, please just stay home.
McMullin as a candidate is a side-show. The GOP already lost its soul when it was fractured enough for Trump to get the nomination. McMullin is not vetted at all. What’s in his closet? He’s not significant enough for anyone to waste the time and money on opposition research, but what are the odds he’s Romney-clean? From what I can see, he simply doesn’t have the right type of experience for the job. He’s an intelligence guy. That’s not the same kind of background we usually seek for POTUS.
@hawk
Point taken. 🙂 I’ll just say this. There are only two people who have a non-zero chance of being elected this cycle: Clinton or Trump. Think about that very hard, and pick one to vote for. Staying home and not voting or “protest voting” for a candidate with zero chance of winning doesn’t help your preferred candidate out of the two choices win and may even help the candidate you dislike win the election. That’s why I recommend voting for one of the two realistic choices. The idea is to place in office the candidate who best represents the will of the people, and that candidate might not your personal ideal choice.
Suppose a guy somehow wins the white house with <1% of the popular vote. Suppose further that this guy has a career in Wall Street and the CIA.
If this guy weren't a Mormon, we might say that this guy is a Gadianton robber. But as a Mormon, he's saving the constitution?
Mike Rowe of “Dirty Jobs” fame has some interesting points regarding voting: https://www.facebook.com/TheRealMikeRowe/posts/1254500967893377
Some excerpts:
“I’m afraid I can’t encourage millions of people whom I’ve never met to just run out and cast a ballot, simply because they have the right to vote. That would be like encouraging everyone to buy an AR-15, simply because they have the right to bear arms….”
“Every four years, celebrities and movie stars look earnestly into the camera and tell the country to “get out and vote.” They tell us it’s our “most important civic duty,” and they speak as if the very act of casting a ballot is more important than the outcome of the election. This strikes me as somewhat hysterical. Does anyone actually believe that Leonardo DiCaprio, Ellen DeGeneres, and Ed Norton would encourage the “masses” to vote, if they believed the “masses” would elect Donald Trump?
Regardless of their political agenda, my celebrity pals are fundamentally mistaken about our “civic duty” to vote. There is simply no such thing. Voting is a right, not a duty, and not a moral obligation.”
…
“Spend a few hours every week studying American history, human nature, and economic theory. Start with “Economics in One Lesson.” Then try Keynes. Then Hayek. Then Marx. Then Hegel. Develop a worldview that you can articulate as well as defend. Test your theory with people who disagree with you. Debate. Argue. Adjust your philosophy as necessary. Then, when the next election comes around, cast a vote for the candidate whose worldview seems most in line with your own.
Or, don’t. None of the freedoms spelled out in our Constitution were put there so people could cast uninformed ballots out of some misplaced sense of civic duty brought on by a celebrity guilt-trip. The right to assemble, to protest, to speak freely – these rights were included to help assure that the best ideas and the best candidates would emerge from the most transparent process possible.
Remember – there’s nothing virtuous or patriotic about voting just for the sake of voting, and the next time someone tells you otherwise, do me a favor – ask them who they’re voting for. Then tell them you’re voting for their opponent. Then, see if they’ll give you a ride to the polls.”
This from the Huffington Post: “Mormons’ Consciences Have Put White Evangelicals To Shame This Election
Evangelicals should take a lesson from Mormons this election season.”
See http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/mormons-consciences-have-put-white-evangelicals-to_us_5802d33de4b0985f6d15724c
Interesting-to-me sidenote:
Laurie Goodstein at the NYT has an article out about millennial and female evangelicals’ disappointment in their leaders’ support for Trump. At least ours are ostensibly neutral and several high-profile, very LDS Utahns have denounced Trump.
A different article I read quoted a female evangelical saying, “I wasn’t just disappointed; I was devastated.”
So now we’ve bonded – LDS and evangelical women – over Trump and/or the church’s polygamy essays. We both know what it’s like to suddenly be thrown under the bus for the “greater good.”
Well, “evangelicals” is tricky as a category. It’s not like there’s an “Evangelical Church” that we all belong to. It gets used a lot on social and political discourse as sort of a proxy for (white) theologically conservative Protestants, but what does a 30-year old staunch Calvinist high-church Anglican in the DC metro area have in common with, say, a 65-year old prosperity gospel/Word of Faith believer who attends a megachurch in Houston? Not to mention the very large number of Americans who identify as “Evangelical” without going to church or even being able to coherently articulate a set of religious beliefs at all. Most serious attempts to discuss “evangelicals” break down pretty quickly at the stage of even defining terms.
It’s made more complicated by the fact that many.most “evangelicals” are generally aware of these problems, yet still feel like there’s a tribe out there they belong to.
You don;t have to do much Googling to find plenty that has been written in the last year (including by Moore) about abandoning the term altogether because nobody can figure out what it actually means . 2016 in particular is revealing the fault lines.
@kullervo
I grew up Presbyterian and now go to a Catholic church because that’s what my spouse likes. Coming up, I always thought “evangelical” was equivalent to “holy roller” or “fundamentalist”, meaning somebody who’s a bit too enthusiastic about Christianity… sometimes to the point of being crazy. To less conservative Christians, the term “evangelical” was derogatory. My big sister has become an “evangelical” in her old age and… big surprise… she and her hubby are rabid Trump fans. Last time we visited, her hubby made the comment “Hillary is the devil.”
Some time back, a job took us to Utah for a few years. Hanging around Mormons, I got the idea that, to Mormons, the term “evangelical” was any non-Mormon Protestant(?), and the term “evangelical” was meant to imply that their beliefs were wrong… not just extreme. This was a slightly different meaning than the one I grew up with. I put the (?) because I am not sure if Mormons include Catholics under the “evangelical” umbrella. I don’t think that mainstream Protestants do.
Despite the ambiguity surrounding the various meanings of “Evangelical,” it’s hard to think of one that could be meaningfully applied to Roman Catholics in general. I think a lot of Mormons don’t have a very good sense of what the landscape of Christian denominations and movements looks like outside of Mormonism (and, in my experience, many Mormons have a particular blind pot for the Protestant mainline, or if they know it exists, they have tough time mentally categorizing it), so I think most Mormons use “evangelical” in the sort of fuzzy way that popular culture/mainstream media uses it, which is to say, “white theologically conservative Protestants,” filtered through the Mormon experience of negative encounters with aggressive friends/neighbors/counter-cult ministries.
Video from President Obama on voting early. 🙂
@kullero
I agree with that characterization of “evangelical”. You have a way with words. 😉
Here’s a Rasmussen Poll showing Trump 30%, McMullin 29%, Clinton 28%. http://heatst.com/politics/exclusive-evan-mcmullin-utah-poll-independent-conservative-ties-trump/?mod=sm_tw_post
Kullervo, you’ve been missing a long time. Good to see you back!
McMullin’s VP is a feminist 35 year old Jewish woman Mindy Finn, despite what your ballot may say “Nathan Johnson.”
http://forward.com/news/351872/10-truths-about-mindy-finn-the-jewish-pro-life-texan-running-for-vice-presi/
I will say that no high-profile Evangelical teacher, theologian or leader who I thought highly of/listened to before the run-up to the 2016 election has endorsed Trump. It would be easy to get the idea that somehow all (or most) prominent Evangelical leaders have backed Trump, but that is not the case. When Trump’s list of high-profile Christian leaders who formed his prayer team or whatever came out, it contained no surprises. They were mostly of a type.
anon: I guess I’d then revise my statement to be “If you’re going to vote for Trump, please stay home.”
Kullervo, I remember asking you what religion you were, (expecting you to say Baptist, Lutheran, Methodist, or something similar) and you said “evangelical” to which I said I didn’t know what that really was. Now you seem to be saying it’s not a very useful term (which I personally agree with), or at least nobody can really describe what constitutes an evangelical
While you may not support Ralph Reed, I think it’s pretty hard to argue that he is not an evangelical leader. Certainly his endorsement of Trump makes him sound like an absolute hypocrite.
http://religionnews.com/2016/10/10/after-lewd-tape-release-reed-lays-out-evangelical-case-for-trump/
It would be great if I had McMullin (or Castle) on my ballot to vote for. Unlike many on here, at the presidential general election, there is no chance of my vote being the deciding vote for my state’s electors. Unfortunately, there are only 3 choices on the ballot here. I would never vote for the career criminal Hillary and do not want to have to vote for the Orange Man. There is a small chance that Trump could be OK as president, but I am doubtful. Johnson or a write in (which probably will not be counted) is the only choice left.
The media spouts favorable print regarding LDS and their Trump opposition just long enough to goat a few more Hillary votes out of the Evangelical voting block. Oh well, positive media is positive media and as Glenn Beck said, “If the consequence of standing against Trump and for principles is indeed the election of Hillary Clinton, so be it. At least it is a moral, ethical choice.”
McMullin’s VP is a feminist 35 year old Jewish woman Mindy Finn, despite what your ballot may say “Nathan Johnson.”
I know I’m being obnoxious, but can you imagine the uproar if Hillary were to say “Tim Kaine is my running mate. But please vote for my trusted friend, Huma Abedin, instead. Once she wins, she will resign and Tim Kaine will become vice president.” (Substitute the Donald, Jared Kushner, and Mike Pence if you wish.)
@lastlemming
” imagine the uproar”
The key difference being that nobody has heard of McMullin, and he has zero chance of winning.
He’s got a good chance of winning Utah and beating Gary Johnson in the electoral college though.
“I think most Mormons use “evangelical” in the sort of fuzzy way that popular culture/mainstream media uses it, which is to say, “white theologically conservative Protestants,” filtered through the Mormon experience of negative encounters with aggressive friends/neighbors/counter-cult ministries.”
This is so true of me that I laughed out loud (in embarrassment).
MH, I’m a Presbyterian.
If you want me to nuance that (and you do, because “Presbyterian” can mean an awful lot of things), I’m an evangelical Protestant in the historic sense of the term, although I don’t really identify with or feel particularly at home in the white evangelical American subculture. My theology is broadly reformed (meaning that you could describe me as a Calvinist and I generally subscribe to the Belgic Confession, the Canons of Dort, and the Heidelberg Catechism, and the Westminster Standards, although I’m not convinced either way on form of church governance or mode of baptism). I’m a member of a Presbyterian church that is relatively conservative but tends to think of itself in more broadly evangelical terms.
And Ralph Reed is a Republican political activist who happens to claim to be an evangelical Christian, not an evangelical teacher, theologian or leader (as in spiritual leader). He’s not even on my radar (or the radar of anyone I know).
And note that I didn’t say that no prominent evangelical figures have supported Trump: plenty have. Just, nobody I respected or listened to did. I know people who were disheartened by James MacDonald and Wayne Grudem throwing in with Trump (and then pleased when they withdrew support), but many of the evangelical leaders who have voiced support for Trump have been from various Word of Faith/prosperity theology camps. We don’t think of them as co-religionists in any sense. We think of them as false teachers.
Is there a such thing as a “waisted vote”?
If I don’t like Clinton, and can’t vote for Trump, isn’t a vote for another party person a way to send a message to the GOP that they need to change…and therefore…not waiting my voice on how I vote my conscience?
I think there is an argument to be made for that. …even if I know my vote won’t choose the winner in this election.
*wasting my voice. …
@heber13
“not wasting my voice on how I vote my conscience”
I recently went shopping for a used car. I had a price point and a bunch of features I wanted. After shopping for 2 months, I couldn’t find a car I liked. I was getting frustrated, so I sat down and thought about a new strategy. I decided to shift focus from what I *liked*to what would best *meet my needs*. I got a car this past weekend. I don’t like everything about it, but it meets my needs better than all the other choices.
That’s how it is with electing a president. Realistically, it comes down to only two choices in this election cycle. If you can’t say you like either candidate, then vote for the one that will best meet the needs of the country. If you want to send a message to the GOP, there are plenty of ways that are more effective and more likely to be actually heard.
Of course, if you despise both candidates and feel that both candidates will harm the country equally, I have no advice on that situation. I think it’s kind of an unlikely scenario, though.
That’s a pragmatic approach that assumes you are operating in some variation of a utilitarian ethical framework.
“What’s in his closet?
McMullin supporters likely feel, like I do, that his closet, whatever may be in it, cannot even come close to the closets of the big 2.
@kullervo
“That’s a pragmatic approach that assumes you are operating in some variation of a utilitarian ethical framework.”
If that means I wanted a new car because my old car’s front bumper was about to fall off… and I don’t want Trump launching an ICBM by mistake… then, yes. 😉
I saw this blog about mc mullin, which would have turned me away very quickly, even if he had a chance http://www.millennialstar.org/why-i-am-nevermcmullin/ He appears to be funded by defence industry people, and have a very aggressive military agenda.
As for not voting for Trump or Clinton, If you don’t want a say on where your country goes for the next 4 years, and won’t complain if it doesn’t go where you want then don’t vote.
Your election process needs an overhall. In Australia voting is compulsory, but we also have preferential voting which means that you number the candidates in the order of your preference, and if the one you voted 1 for doesn’t get elected you vote is passed on to your number 2 and so on until it counts. This way you can protest but still elect the one you prefer. We usually have 4 week election campaigns, How you survive 12 or 18 months and how much money is wasted is disturbing.
The debates are broadcast here, but there are very few people who support Trump. As hedgehog says if Utah votes Trump, it will be a smack in the face for the credibility of the Church. Who would associate with Trump supporters.
Yeah, I’m not voting for McMullin because he’s basically indistinguishable from a generic establishment Republican. But I sure hope people who would otherwise vote for Trump vote for him (not to spoil the Republican vote–I’m no Clinton supporter by a long shot–but because I think even “generic establishment Republican” is basically a bajillion times better than Trump).
anon: I don’t buy your analogy of the car shopping. Because I have never seen a situation where there are only 2 cars. We have so many consumer options, and then the Internet to find what we are looking for…holy crap I wish that was how the elections were like. We could actually find a good President that way!!
But if there was a fictitious town that only sold 2 cars, and both were lemons and not worth my money…I wouldn’t buy it anyway and keep sending the message to the car lot they can get away with pushing to the consumer what they want to sell rather than what the consumer wants. Nope. I’d rather ride a bike to work until they get the message.
I understand the mature approach to compromise, and to prioritize what matters and what can give. But if the used car salesman keep grabbing you in the ****, and saying “I am a celebrity, I can do and say what I want. They let you do that.” ….you don’t just go ahead and buy the car and say…it was the best of worst options. That is enabling the abuser. And because I see Clinton abusing also…don’t think I’m just talking about one side that thinks they can get away with it.
I don’t want to enable crappy political parties that produce these options as their best. They should do better vetting.
My compromise is to still vote, and vote for a 3rd party dude who normally isn’t a viable option…until the big 2 options have shown me they are in a basket of deplorables all their own.
I believe your approach to just go with one just because there is nothing better is exactly what got us to this point in the first place.
**aren’t in a basket of deplorables.
anon keeps saying McMullin has “zero” chance at winning. The statisticians put it as high as to 10%. Just FYI. I don’t think he will win, but it is higher than zero.
See what the real statisticians say: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/heres-how-were-forecasting-the-4-way-presidential-race-in-utah/
“anon keeps saying McMullin has “zero” chance at winning”
It’s a rhetorical expression, e.g. “Trump has zero chance of going 24 hours without a bone-headed tweet.” Statistically, McMullin has zero chance of winning the presidency *outright*, but a non-zero chance of winning the presidency overall. Even so, his chances are so low that I, personally, would consider voting for him a wasted vote. Realistically speaking, the next president will be Clinton (about 90% chance) or Trump (about 10% chance), and McMullin (rhetorically speaking) has zero chance.
“It would take a fascinating scenario — in which much of the technical detail of how we select presidents comes into play — for McMullin to be sworn in as the 45th president, but the chances of its happening are slim, not none. Indeed, his chances of at least making things very interesting may be as high as 1 to 3 percent — about the same as the odds of the Cubs’ coming back to beat the Giants on Monday.”
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-evan-mcmullin-could-win-utah-and-the-presidency/
Well, this is an interesting development. 🙂 I guess it ain’t over till it’s over.
http://fox13now.com/2016/10/19/new-poll-shows-evan-mcmullin-beating-trump-clinton-in-utah/
“A new poll just released shows Evan McMullin is now leading in Utah.
The poll from Emerson College shows the Utah native leads Donald Trump by four points, 31 percent to 27 percent, and that leaves Hillary Clinton with only 24 percent in the Beehive State.”
Here’s another analysis from Nate Silver at FiveThirtyEight.com analyzing the YouGov and Monmouth polls mentioned above: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/heres-how-were-forecasting-the-4-way-presidential-race-in-utah/
By the way, the Cubs beat the Giants already and are now playing the Dodgers. Just sayin.
McMullin’s chances of winning Utah will have as much impact to POTUS as BYU’s win over Mississippi State has on the football BCS Championship….virtually none.
It can’t fulfill the White Horse prophecy unless we say that prophecy is meaningless.
Even if by some slim chance Hillary doesn’t achieve the required 270 electoral votes it is hard to see House Republicans passing over Trump to select McMullin. McMullin is too moderate for the current Republican Party. For example, he believes climate change is real. He isn’t interested in trying to overturn same-sex marriage. (But would like to see Roe v Wade overturned) He believes in free trade. NPR recently interviewed him on the “On Point” program.
KSL is reporting that McMullin is officially ahead of Trump in Utah: http://www.ksl.com/index.php?sid=41911133&nid=757
FiveThirtyEight says polls may be underestimating McMullin’s chances to win Utah: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/polls-may-be-underestimating-evan-mcmullins-chances-in-utah/