Gilmore said he rejects “Never Trump” Republicanism, accusing those who would have fully disowned the GOP nominee this year of “putting the country second to their own ambitions.” This election has to be about “the big movement of the country in big directions,” he said, “and I choose the direction of the Republican Party.”
On that, we disagree.
Something to consider here as Clinton maintains a +5 lead nationwide and demonstrable leads in states such as Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Virginia, and Colorado — most if not all of the federal races are doing everything possible to put distance between themselves and Trump.
…and for the U.S. Senate, it’s working.
Folks, if your concern is federal judges? Holding a majority in the U.S. Senate to hold the line against radical U.S. Supreme Court nominees is vital.
As it stands right now, 538’s projections give Hillary 2:1 odds on winning the White House. On the flip side? The U.S. Senate appears to be leaning slightly Republican, with a narrow one or two seat advantage.
The #NeverTrump camp can effectively be divided into three camps:
- Those who are truly embittered that Trump stole power from those who thought it was theirs by right.
- Supporters of Ted Cruz who believe Trump knifed their candidate (i.e. kinda like how Hillary knifed Bernie).
- Those who honestly and earnestly believe Trump is not a conservative and cannot in good conscience support him.
Of course, you have to wonder about the demands for “loyalty oaths” from Trump supporters who in March 2016 decried the idea as being completely unfair. That having been said, most Trump boosters who seem unable to convince the 2/3 of the GOP who didn’t vote for Trump in Virginia seem utterly obsessed at imposing such a standard — and when they can’t get it? They allege either #1 (which is only true for a handful huddled of middle and upper-level operators in the Beltway) or #2 (which is entirely true… Cruz supporters are still embittered and for good reason).
Then there are the conservatives who remain utterly unconvinced, and I am one of them.
For Catholics such as myself, Trump presents an antithesis to everything we thought the Republican Party was supposed to represent. National Review’s Michael New touches on the subject as best as he can (and not well), but the Washington Post recently came out with strong numbers — 61% for Clinton and 34% for Trump — when the Catholic vote was split in half just four years ago:
It’s also hard to overstate just how significant Trump’s poor performance among Catholics is. That’s because they comprise about one-quarter of voters in the United States (25 percent in 2012 exit polls) and are about as big a voting bloc as non-whites (28 percent) and independents (29 percent).
While we often look at how Trump is doing worse than Romney among Hispanics, we’re really talking about the difference between Trump taking 45 percent of the vote and 46 percent — or maybe 49.5 percent or 50.5 percent. That’s because Hispanics are only about 10 percent of the electorate, and the GOP’s share of that vote is likely to be between 20 and 35 percent or so.
When talking about Catholics, though, Trump is basically adding 5 to 7 percentage points to Clinton’s overall margin. If 25 percent of the electorate is Catholic, Clinton is currently taking 14 to 15 points worth of that chunk, while Trump is taking 8 or 8.5 points. And this is a group, again, that is usually close to tied.
The fact that traditional Catholics and Catholics who attend Mass weekly are leaning against Trump as well?
This is no minor demographic — fully 25% of the nation is Catholic.
If one looks hard at the states Trump needs to win — Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania, and yes even Virginia — Catholic sentiment swings elections. For a guy that literally picked a fight with Pope Francis? Come on…
So why are Catholics in particular and others (such as Jim Gilmore) instinctively allergic to the Trump candidacy without being able to put their finger on it? The answer comes in this graph right here, courtesy of the UK Economist:
The graph on the left is very simple — the more the media pays attention to Trump, the better his numbers. Fact.
It’s the graph on the left that should give folks pause. To date, the polite way of excusing the Trump candidacy has been to argue that a lean towards authoritarianism in uncertain times — the Mussolini hypothesis — is what is driving the Trump candidacy. Problem is, it just ain’t true…
Perhaps none of the many theories proposed were so jarring, or gained so wide a following, as the “authoritarianism” explanation. A study published in January argued that support for Mr Trump was fuelled by newly awakened “authoritarian” voters who thrilled to his continued haranguing of Muslims and Mexicans. After all, Mr Trump had “replaced the dog whistle”—coded language to appeal to prejudiced voters—“with a bull horn”, says Matt MacWilliams, author of the study.
. . .
However, one theory of Trump remains standing. Along with the questions on authoritarianism, we also requested YouGov to ask a battery of questions aimed at measuring racial resentment. Different from outright racism, this is measured by support for the idea that blacks are undeserving and clamorous for special assistance. Strongly disagreeing with the claim that “over the past few years blacks have gotten less than they deserve”, for example, reflects a high degree of racial resentment.
Racial resentment was tightly linked to Mr Trump’s supporters. These results held true when we controlled for region, race and religion, among other factors: 59% of Trump supporters in the Republican primary scored in the top quartile on racial resentment, compared with 46% of Republicans who backed other candidates and with 29% of voters overall. Those who thought that more should be done to fight terrorism were also much more likely to support him. In the Gallup study, whites who lived in racially isolated areas had a higher opinion of Mr Trump as well.
These findings cast doubt on the alarming notion that Mr Trump is propelled by a latent yearning for a strongman. Instead, they bolster the view that the candidate’s recent speeches painting a dystopian vision of black America racked by crime and unemployment were aimed not at black voters themselves, but rather at the kind of whites who tell pollsters that blacks are lazy and overindulged.
One’s proclivities for authoritarianism — according to this survey — is no indicator for whether or not a voter is inclined to support Donald J. Trump. Racial resentment, on the other hand, is a firm indicator for determining one’s support for Trump.
Now of course, in the same way one cannot label all #NeverTrump support as sour grapes, one certainly cannot label all Trump supporters as seeing an illegal immigrant behind every taco truck. Still, it would be obtuse to deny the existence of either sour grapes on one hand or racial resentment on the other.
…and that is what scares the hell out of a lot of conservatives, gives pause to others, and for Catholics especially Trumpism represents a complete repudiation of everything we believe at our very core — against life, against marriage, against family, against the duty we owe to our neighbor, against the idea we should see Christ in the Other.
It’s hard to put one’s finger on it, but the core elements of concern are there.
Trump boosters would do well to address those concerns and not simply paper them over (or demand loyalty at the point of a bayonet).
Unfortunately, at this stage it is perhaps too late… but should things descend to their logical conclusions, should Hillary Clinton become president, the Congress — firewalled from the effects of Trumpism by the #NeverTrump movement — will be the only bulwark against Hillary’s SCOTUS nominees.
Should 2018 prove to be like 1994? The only question that remains will be whether the 2018 tidal wave will be a populist one in the mold of Buchanan, Rockerfeller, McCarthy, Fr. Coughlin, Lindbergh and Trump? Or will it look a bit more like Reagan, Goldwater, Paul, Kemp, Buckley and Brooks — a second conservative revolution that will set us up for the 2020 and a true national restoration?
Gotta say, I prefer that narrative.
UPDATE: Jim Gilmore has decided to bend the knee:
I want to clear up any confusion that may exist about my position on the November election. While I hadn’t been formally asked to do so, today I wanted to make clear that I endorse the Republican nominee, Donald Trump for the Presidency and I urge every voter in the Commonwealth of Virginia to join me in doing so. Whether or not we agree with Mr. Trump on every issue it is clear that Hillary Clinton is unfit for the Presidency in every way.
That didn’t take long.
