Patterico's Pontifications

12/6/2016

Faithless Republican Elector: I Will Not Vote for Trump

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 9:00 am



I’m no fan of Donald Trump, but this is ridiculous on several levels. Christopher Suprun, a Republican member of the electoral college, says in the New York Times that he won’t vote for Trump:

I am a Republican presidential elector, one of the 538 people asked to choose officially the president of the United States. Since the election, people have asked me to change my vote based on policy disagreements with Donald J. Trump. In some cases, they cite the popular vote difference. I do not think president-elects should be disqualified for policy disagreements. I do not think they should be disqualified because they won the Electoral College instead of the popular vote. However, now I am asked to cast a vote on Dec. 19 for someone who shows daily he is not qualified for the office.

. . . .

Mr. Trump goes out of his way to attack the cast of “Saturday Night Live” for bias. He tweets day and night, but waited two days to offer sympathy to the Ohio State community after an attack there. He does not encourage civil discourse, but chooses to stoke fear and create outrage.

Wait. He has prime real estate in the nation’s paper of record to explain why he cannot vote for Donald Trump — and his first point is that Trump attacked the cast of Saturday Night Live? What else ya got?

Mr. Trump lacks the foreign policy experience and demeanor needed to be commander in chief. During the campaign more than 50 Republican former national security officials and foreign policy experts co-signed a letter opposing him. In their words, “he would be a dangerous president.” During the campaign Mr. Trump even said Russia should hack Hillary Clinton’s emails. This encouragement of an illegal act has troubled many members of Congress and troubles me.

Yes, some foreign policy folks opposed him, and other supported him. The voters knew these things and made their choice. As for the claim that Trump “said Russia should hack Hillary Clinton’s emails” . . . it’s not true. Follow the link. Trump acted like an ass, essentially laughing at the notion of Russia having hacked Hillary Clinton’s emails — but he didn’t say they should. A false narrative based on media misreporting is not a reason to refuse to vote for the person the People chose.

Suprun’s other arguments are also unpersuasive, ranging from standard-issue complaints about Trump that the voters considered and rejected (Trump encouraged violence at his rallies) to the bizarre (Steve Bannon praised Darth Vader!).

Suprun also says: “Mr. Trump could be impeached in his first year given his dismissive responses to financial conflicts of interest.” While I share the concern about Trump’s cavalier attitude towards these issues, I doubt an impeachment will happen with Republicans in charge.

But you know what? If imepachment happens, it happens. The more I learn about how our Presidents have violated their oaths of office, the more sympathetic I am to impeachment as a remedy for an out-of-control executive. But that’s for the future, Mr. Suprun.

Mr. Suprun’s solution? Rally around someone like . . . John Kasich. Hahahahaha no.

In the end, there will be few faithless electors, and Trump will be President. The confidence I feel as I write that sentence gives me pause, since it’s the same sort of confidence I felt as I made incorrect predictions throughout the election. Still, I feel pretty good about this one.

Mr. Suprun is right: this is a republic. Electors can indeed save us from ourselves in extraordinary situations. Had Trump actually shot someone on Fifth Avenue after the election, electors could justify inserting themselves into the process and rejecting the choice of the voters. The Constitution provides for it.

But not because of media lies, or a President-elect’s bad attitude towards the cast of Saturday Night Live.

[Cross-posted at RedState.]

100 Responses to “Faithless Republican Elector: I Will Not Vote for Trump”

  1. this person’s a twit how do twit-people get selected for this job

    pls to explain

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  2. What state is the Suprun guy from?

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  3. Virtue signaling… swayed by SNL.

    Colonel Haiku (64320c)

  4. He’s from Texas by way of relocation.

    Colonel Haiku (64320c)

  5. I agree this is a mistake but it’s his choice because he is the elector. I doubt he will be one again.

    DRJ (15874d)

  6. When trump did comment, the usual suspects have agita, meaning the wahhabi lobby

    narciso (d1f714)

  7. Virtue signaling and his Warhol-defined 15 minutes of fame.

    It’s a win-win for his breed.

    Colonel Haiku (64320c)

  8. “this person’s a twit how do twit-people get selected for this job

    “pls to explain” – happyfeet

    Happy, really?

    Because there aren’t enough of the other kind to go around.

    ThOR (c9324e)

  9. You can never see what’s inside a person’s heart, but it sure looks like Mr Suprun had been trying to improve his profile as a public speaker during this past election season. In the past, he’s taught at George Washington University, he’s had a blog, he’s published editorials in newspapers, and he’s currently writing a book.
    I imagine a number of MSM outlets will want to profile him now.
    Fifteen minutes, indeed.
    Yuck.

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  10. Ah bannon and Vader, I would have though grand moff tarkin

    narciso (d1f714)

  11. Because there aren’t enough of the other kind to go around.
    ThOR (c9324e) — 12/6/2016 @ 9:50 am

    Ha!

    felipe (b5e0f4)

  12. that is so regrettable Mr. ThOR

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  13. Bob dole arranged the call to Taiwan.

    narciso (d1f714)

  14. The best case outcome of faithless electors is that the election gets thrown to the House. In that case, I think political pressure on the Congressmen results in the House electing Trump anyway (if nothing else, out of fear of vindictive primarying in 2018). But the events would *outrage* the Trump base, meaning we get the same President along with a much more volatile, and more hostile, political climate.

    Seems like a lose-lose proposition, to me.

    aphrael (eaac96)

  15. Even more nuttiness…

    ” TRUMP DERANGEMENT SYNDROME: Trump’s election stole my desire to look for a partner. “Once it was clear that Donald Trump would be president instead of Hillary Clinton, I felt sick to my stomach. I wanted to gather my children in bed with me and cling to them like we would if thunder and lightning were raging outside, with winds high enough that the power might go out. The world felt that precarious to me. . . . I’ve lost the desire to attempt the courtship phase. The future is uncertain. I am not the optimistic person I was on the morning of Nov. 8, wearing a T-shirt with ‘Nasty Woman’ written inside a red heart. It makes me want to cry thinking of that. Of seeing my oldest in the shirt I bought her in Washington, D.C., that says ‘Future President.’ There is no room for dating in this place of grief. Dating means hope. I’ve lost that hope in seeing the words ‘President-elect Trump.’”

    I’m pretty sure that the guy she was dating before dodged a bullet here. It’s another Trump miracle!

    https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/251100/

    Colonel Haiku (64320c)

  16. Reminds me the Seinfeld episode with David James Elliott. This was before jag I think.

    narciso (d1f714)

  17. He will go down in history, by name, as one of the very few “faithless electors”

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_elector#List_of_faithless_electors

    The last 3 who chose another candidate (as opposed to people making generic protests):

    1 – 1976 election: Washington Elector Mike Padden, pledged for Republicans Gerald Ford and Bob Dole, cast his presidential electoral vote for Ronald Reagan, who had challenged Ford for the Republican nomination. He cast his vice presidential vote, as pledged, for Dole.

    1 – 1972 election: Virginia Elector Roger MacBride, pledged for Republicans Richard Nixon and Spiro Agnew, cast his electoral votes for Libertarian candidates John Hospers and Tonie Nathan. MacBride’s vote for Nathan was the first electoral vote cast for a woman in U.S. history. MacBride became the Libertarian candidate for President in the 1976 election.

    1 – 1968 election: North Carolina Elector Lloyd W. Bailey, pledged for Republicans Richard Nixon and Spiro Agnew, cast his votes for American Independent Party candidates George Wallace and Curtis LeMay.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  18. 15 minutes of fame…

    Colonel Haiku (64320c)

  19. If that is her picture in the post, she’s not unattractive, but she’s one of ehrenteich’s minions.

    narciso (d1f714)

  20. If the electoral vote had been closer, this kind of thing might matter. Unless Jill Stein can tie up some electoral votes with her tantrum, 37 GOP electors would have to vote for someone else to force this into the House (where Trump still wins).

    The real way to combat this is to keep bringing up the guy who changed his vote from Nixon to Wallace and talk about the racist history of faithless electors, such as the 15 in 1960 who voted for the Dixiecrat Byrd-Thurmond ticket instead of JFK.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  21. 15 minutes of fame…

    Then a forever of infamy.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  22. Thats stock photog, the cheap and thinking man’s pron.

    urbanleftbehind (5eecdb)

  23. OTOH, there is still time for Trump to shoot someone on 5th Avenue.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  24. Insty was right, Trump has indirectly saved some poor sap from a very painful relationship.

    Colonel Haiku (64320c)

  25. He’s on a roll, let’s get a hold of that Italian actress and make it pompas all around!!!

    Colonel Haiku (64320c)

  26. Should have guessed she’s of a willow type, than a harmony

    narciso (d1f714)

  27. Stephanie land is her name, the spring surprise.

    narciso (d1f714)

  28. So what is a Match type? Plenty of’s tend to be psychopaths.

    urbanleftbehind (5eecdb)

  29. No, the actual SL is much too rough. She must have “skills” because the dudes aren’t gross (though that would put her as perhaps a fage-hage).

    urbanleftbehind (5eecdb)

  30. at least she’s not a climate-hoaxing stripper

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  31. Yeah, he woke up the day after the election and realized that Trump was Trump. In the meantime, nothing new has happened, and the Trump is still just as trumpy as the day the elector pledged to vote for him.

    M Patterson (7d4d4d)

  32. @happyfeet, @thOR: He’s probably just another lefty mole, burrowed into any organization he can get into, flying a false flag and waiting for his opportunity.

    He burrowed into the Republican party and the Electoral College white nicely, did he not?

    Fred Z (b0a041)

  33. Hey, we were given a choice between a clown and a scold, and I voted for the clown. Now, having elected the clown, I don’t think I get to act all surprised that the circus is in town.

    C. S. P. Schofield (99bd37)

  34. This is inexcusable. He knew the rules and requirements going in. He knew who and what the candidates were, and what they stood for. And he knows that SNL is occasionally a lightening rod.

    Is there a process in place to replace people like this, much as a juror can be replaced?

    Bill H (971e5f)

  35. Its a cry for help, like the chattered accountant who wanted to be a lion tamer.

    narciso (d1f714)

  36. “Its a cry for help . . . “

    LOL

    Very good, narciso.

    ThOR (c9324e)

  37. I love the circus!

    ThOR (c9324e)

  38. Kevin M (25bbee) — 12/6/2016 @ 11:02 am

    racist history of faithless electors, such as the 15 in 1960 who voted for the Dixiecrat Byrd-Thurmond ticket instead of JFK.

    Those were not faithless electors. It was the official Democratic Party in Alabama and Mississippi that defected. I’m not even sure the name of the Presidential candidate was on the ballot. I know or remember it was not in at least one of those two states.

    This was in the days when mostly only whites (it wasn’t perfect) were able to vote in those states, and Alabama had as its motto an eagle with the label White Supremacy on it. Many African Americans who could vote there were still Republican, like they all had been from the end of the Civil War till 1932. Martin Luther King’s father, in fact, (from Georgia) endorsed Nixon. Condoleeza Rice’s family was one of the few who remained Republican until way past everyone else.

    In Mississippi the 8 Electors were unpledged, and in Alabama there had been a primary (!) for Electors and 5 of the 11 electors on the Democratic slate were for Kennedy and 6 were for Byrd.

    Sammy Finkelman (96f386)

  39. Narciso

    If this were I Dream of Jeanie Mr Suprin would end up in a cage with Trump and a bouquet of flowers instead of a whip.

    Pinandpuller (7ca3fb)

  40. Bill H @34. I read that in some states Electors can be replaced or maybe are automatically replaced or automatically resign if they vote for someone they are not pledged to. The thing is the vote is actually supposed to be secret. That was the original idea when the Electors voted for two candidates for president, one of whom at least had not to be resident of the same state as themselves, a requirement which was continued in the 12th amendment, although there wasn’t the same reason for it any more. The Electoral College was originally designed to prevent campaigns, but that never happened, not even in 1796.

    No idea how it is Texas.

    Hillary Clinton will also lose one elector in Washington State to Bernie Sanders, but he announced that before the election at least, via newspapers in that state and not in the New York Times.

    Sammy Finkelman (96f386)

  41. Re: Popular vote in 1960 for president:

    Those people who want to say that John F. Kennedy won the popular vote in 1960 count the vote cast for both the Alabama and Mississippi Democratic Party slates as being for Kennedy, but in Mississippi there wasn’t any way for anyone to actually vote for Kennedy.

    Now, you can subtract the 108,362 votes cast for the Democratic ticket in Mississippi and still have Kennedy win the popular vote vs Nixon 34,118,734 to 34,107,646, but it’s a real question how to deal with Alabama, where 324,050 votes were cast for a mixed slate of Electors.

    There may have been some more complications – I am only going by the tables in an old Information Please Almanac.

    (This also does not factor in votes probably added in Illinois and Texas. Kennedy carried Illinois by just 8,858 votes out of 4,757,409 – the crooks involved added only as many votes as they needed and no more. Texas was carried by 46,233 out of 2,311,845, and no one knows how many Eugene Locke and others might have added.)

    Hawaii, by the way, was carried by Kennedy by just 115 votes in 1960 (Out of 184,705.)

    Hawaii was turning from Republican to Democratic at that time. When Alaska and Hawaii were admitted to the Union, Alaska was expected to send Democratic Senators to the senate in Washington and Hawaii was expected to send Repubicans, but they both reversed themselves after about 10 years.

    Sammy Finkelman (96f386)

  42. I think Dr. Bellows ran into situations like that.

    narciso (d1f714)

  43. 33… heh!

    Colonel Haiku (64320c)

  44. Meanwhile softbank is investing 50 billion in the us, and about 50,000 jibs

    narciso (d1f714)

  45. There were 537 Electoral votes in 1960. Alaska and Hawaii each had one member of the House of Represenratives in addition to the more permanent 435, and the District of Columbia could not yet vote in Presidential elections, (the 23rd amendment was ratified on March 23, 1961)

    That means 269 were enough to win. Kennedy had 303, including the 5 from Alabama. The Alabama and Mississippi pro-Byrd electors in 1960 add up to 14 – Nixon lost one of his 8 Electors in Oklahoma to Byrd as well. In that year Illinois had 27 Electoral votes and Texas had 24. Kennedy would have won without either state but not without both. If Nixon carrred both, he would have had 270 Electoral vots instead of 219, and could only afford to lose one more Elector without the election going into the House of Representatives. If Nixon lost one of Oklahoma’s eight electors, he might have lost 2 or more from Texas, or some other Dmocratic electors from the white south, knowing it mattered, might have also defected. If it had gone into the House some southern Democrats might have tried to bargain on Civil Rights. They couldn’t have elected Byrd. You could say maybe they would have wanted to compromise on the popular vote leader, but that would probably have been Nixon unless you count the 86,069 Dem pluraity in Alabama. And you have all sorts of questions about people prevented from voting. And a majority Democratic House. And a deadlocked one because 26 states would have needed and some states could be divided so this could take some time. The Senate might have meanwhile chosen Senate Majority Leader Lyndon Baines Johnson for Vice President, except that he would have deferred to Kennedy and prevented a vote. I suppose Nixon would have told the Republicans to choose Kennedy. He couldn’t really win anyway unless he made a deal with Dixiecrats which he wouldn’t have done.

    We see here maybe another reason Nixon didn’t try for a recount, although also it was that there was no way to recount Texas and he needed both Texas and Illinois to win (provided that he had no more than two faithless electors)

    Sammy Finkelman (96f386)

  46. In the Nixon wins Texas and Illinois scenario, it’s only Republican electors defecting who can throw the election into the House. One possible Democratic strategy – have some liberal Democratic electors from Minnesota and some other state – maybe Pennsylvania – for, say, Hubert Humphrey, to keep Byrd out of the House, although maybe that wouldn’t matter because Byrd was not going to win.

    But it would force southern democrats on the first ballot in the House in 1961 to vote for either Kennedy or Nixon. They could have abstained maybe, except maybe that wouldn’t keep their state out of the total. I can’t see these segregationists voting for Humphrey, and so the Alabama and Missisippi delegations couldn’t have postponed a decision. I didn’t check the comosition of the House in 1961. Maybe none of the dixiecrats would have been needed.

    They would also have had to decide then whether a pluraity or a majority of a state’s delegation was necessary to cast its vote. In the two elections we have had that went to the House there were either de jure or de factor only two candidates.

    This scenario also wouldn’t happen unless it was clear some Nixon electors were going to defect to Byrd.

    Sammy Finkelman (96f386)

  47. Those were not faithless electors.

    Hush. You spoil the narrative. Also there were electors in 1956 and 1948 who cast Dixiecrat votes although they were “bound” to the national Dem candidate.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  48. There may have been some more complications

    Like Chicago’s dead-of-the-night million votes for Kennedy that flipped the state from Nixon?

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  49. Ooops. Sorry Sammy, I see you weren’t nearly done.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  50. Sammy – Hawaii originally elected one Republican and one Democrat as Senator. Hiram Fong, the Republican, served from 1959-1977, and no other Senator from Hawaii has ever been a Republican. The other Senator elected in 1959, a Democrat, didn’t run for re-election in 1962, and was replaced by Daniel Inouye, who served until 2012.

    Alaska originally elected two Democrats. One of them served from 1959-1968 and died in office; his appointed replacement was Ted Stevens, a Republican who served until 2009.

    The other served until 1969, and was replaced by Mike Gravel, a Democrat who served until 1981. Gravel was replaced by Frank Murkowski, who was replaced by Lisa Murkowski.

    aphrael (eaac96)

  51. Wonder if that Washington Elector is going to follow through on being faithless to Hillary.

    This Texas elector can look forward to a lifetime of strange new respect, giving speeches and writing articles saying “As a lifelong Republican, I am appalled by”…

    But the Washington Elector, probably not.

    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1)

  52. 47. Those were not faithless electors.

    Kevin M (25bbee) — 12/6/2016 @ 1:19 pm

    Hush. You spoil the narrative.

    The Nixon elector in 1960 from Oklahoma who voted for Harry F. Byrd was.

    Besides the Republican Elector from North Carolina in 1968 who voted for George Wallace and the Republican Elector from West Virginia in 1972 who voted for John Hospers, of the Libertarian Party (in each of his 3 runs for President, Richard Nixon lost one Elector) there was also a Republican Washington State Elector in 1976 who voted for Reagan, and a Democratic elector from West Virginia in 1988 who voted for Lloyd Bentsen (and voted for Dukakis for vice president) a Democratic Elector from DC who left her vote for president blank in 2000 in order to protest the fact DC had no representation in Congress – that was the generic protest you mentioned – and a Democratic elector from Minnesota in 2004 who voted for John Edwards (the identity of this person is not known, because the ballots in Minnesota are not signed, and it is believed to be an error, according to thegreenpapers.com. He or she voted for Edwards for both president and vice president. Nobody admitted it.)

    By the way, the faithless Republican elector from Virginia who voted for John Hospers in 1972 became the Libertarian party nominee for president in 1976! I didn’t know that.

    Also there were electors in 1956 and 1948 who cast Dixiecrat votes although they were “bound” to the national Dem candidate.

    One from Tennessee in 1948, giving Strom Thurmond an extra electoral vote in addition to those from the 5 states he carried (Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Georgia and South Carolina – Truman was not on the ballot at all in Alabama in 1948) and an elector from Alabama who voted for Walter B Jones in 1956.

    Sammy Finkelman (96f386)

  53. He’ll get props from the Bernie crowd, at worst get dragooned into teepee duty in North Dakota, at best be fixed up with Miss Land for her next holiday party. If his opposition were more rust-beltish, sure, why shoudnt someone in the Manchin/Trafficant recent convert mold fete him?

    urbanleftbehind (5eecdb)

  54. From 1968 through 2012 (12 presidential elections) we’ve had 6 faithless electors, an average of 1 every 2 elections. If we have two this yeat it will be 8 in 13 elections or about 1.62 or a little more than 3 every 2 Presidential elections.

    Sammy Finkelman (96f386)

  55. I’m so shocked that a Republican elector who has decided to go rogue is from Texas. (LOL)

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  56. @happyfeet:this person’s a twit how do twit-people get selected for this job

    Generally long-time party loyalists. Fundraising, community organizing, and what-not. You might say that being a twit is a requirement….

    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1)

  57. So guess who else is using suprun’s consulting, megaphone strategies

    narciso (d1f714)

  58. Faithless Love Dude

    Faithless dude it’s the path you chose
    Down in Texas you’ll get a broken nose
    You keep on whining, we know that you blow
    And you cast that vote and see how it goes
    Faithless dude, reap just what you sow

    Faithless dude if it’s fame you seek
    There’re better ways than as some feckless geek
    You committed some fraud, just listen don’t speak
    Faithless Dude they’ll find you
    With some rope entwine you
    Faithless Dude, they’re gonna be so rude

    Colonel Haiku (64320c)

  59. yes yes this is one of them jobs what shouldn’t be held by anyone that wants it

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  60. This Texas elector can look forward to a lifetime of strange new respect

    But not outside of Austin. Kasich! At least he could have said Cruz.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  61. “Mr. Trump goes out of his way to attack the cast of “Saturday Night Live” for bias.”

    That would push me over the edge too.

    AZ Bob (f7a491)

  62. This Texas Suprun elector guy seems to be really angry about twitter and Saturday Night Live. If only he were equally as angry about ISIS, Iran, China, North Korea, and the Left.

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  63. So in other words, there are good cases to be made against Trump. But this guy didn’t make one.

    scrubone (c3104f)

  64. It made mcmuffins argument seem reasonable, have they been perusing Martha Washington graphic novels.

    narciso (d1f714)

  65. It’s his right as an elector to cast his vote for whomever he chooses.

    That said, I’d have more respect for him if he did any of the following:

    a) Resigned his seat as an elector, after explaining why he couldn’t vote for Trump.
    b) Cast his vote against Trump, without publicly divulging his reasons.
    c) Resigned his seat as an elector, without publicly divulging his reasons.

    The option he chose is really the worst of all possible worlds. It’s grandstanding for grandstanding’s sake.

    Demosthenes (09f714)

  66. Its about agitprop, astroturf, who his partners are

    narciso (d1f714)

  67. Bow tramp’s claims about Boeing re slate are accurate.

    narciso (d1f714)

  68. Now he’s on Larry o’donnell’s show, snorfle. The end of the line.

    narciso (d1f714)

  69. #65 Demosthenes, of course Mr Suprun’s grandstanding — based on his track record, he’s seeking to become a public voice.

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  70. Better term for it is pettystanding.

    He has known since spring that if he were a GOP elector,he would be expected to cast his vote for Trump.
    And Trump has been acting rather presidential (in Trumpian terms). So I am inclined to be cynical.

    Kishnevi (abbfd8)

  71. Well, there you have it, narciso. This guy is either a plant or has a pathological need to be noticed. Although he is certainly on the wrong show for the latter.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  72. I,m sure they’ve scheduled him for more, snorfle, but he’s already picked more selective audience.

    narciso (d1f714)

  73. Mr. Suprun is right: this is a republic. Electors can indeed save us from ourselves in extraordinary situations. Had Trump actually shot someone on Fifth Avenue after the election, electors could justify inserting themselves into the process and rejecting the choice of the voters. The Constitution provides for it.

    But not because of media lies, or a President-elect’s bad attitude towards the cast of Saturday Night Live.

    :sniffle: {dabs a tear} That’s my boy.

    papertiger (c8116c)

  74. Kasich responds to the faithless elector

    I am not a candidate for President and ask that electors not vote for me when they gather later this month. Our country had an election and Donald Trump won.

    By God. It makes me proud to be a Republican in America.

    papertiger (c8116c)

  75. Maximum unity reached!

    papertiger (c8116c)

  76. #74 papertiger,

    But nevermind defeating ISIS, Iran, China, the U.N., or the international left; Christopher Supren is waging war against Darth Vader! (LOL)

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  77. Who’s cynical enough to think the faithless elector is in cahoots with ~ operating at the behest of John Kasich?

    Back before the first primary every of the candidates signed a pact that they would support the eventual winner in the general. Several of them renegged. They don’t get to the other end of a Trump Presidency intact maybe.

    The main thing about Kasich is he’s an ahole. He calls it principle but it’s really just aholio.

    So imagine he calls Trump and wants a way to do a take back of his reneg.

    John Kasich: The Ohio governor has repeatedly stated he believes global warming is caused by humans, and says this sets him apart from the other GOP candidates.

    “I know that human beings affect the climate,” Kasich said in an interview in Vermont last week. “I know it’s an apostasy in the Republican Party to say that. I guess that’s what I’ve always been — being able to challenge some of the status quo.”

    Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/27/heres-where-the-2016-candidates-stand-on-global-warming/#ixzz4S8YPFtl8

    Because he’s an often wrong but never in doubt kind of guy Kasich makes a secret deal. Trump meets with Al Gore to hear him out in exchange for Kasich’s late to the party kiss of the ring.

    The weirdly reasoning faithless elector becomes subterfuge.

    papertiger (c8116c)

  78. He has known since spring that if he were a GOP elector,he would be expected to cast his vote for Trump.

    This. Kind of makes him a ringer, not an elector. I wonder if he’s sold his story to anyone yet.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  79. Did you ever notice that people who have always been keen on the State controlling the means of production are on board with global warming hysteria, and propose the State controlling the means of production as the cure.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  80. John Kasich said that Ohio Electors should NOT vote for him. He said this would serve to further divide the country.

    http://nypost.com/2016/12/06/kasich-asks-electoral-college-not-to-change-vote-for-him/

    No, he’s not part of this. I am not sure whay anyone would think so in the first place. It won’t make him president or anything. Christopher Suprun just had to pick a name that would position himself on the political spectrum as still a Republican.

    Some electors had been consulting with the Clinton campaign, but they are Democratic Electors, particularly from Colorado. There are at least 8 of them. They call themselves Hamilton electors and are trying to find some Republican electors to go along and vote for Kasich. It’s very sensitive and both former Clinton campaign officials and DNC officials refused to comment to Politico.

    By the way, Bill Clinton is an elector from New York. They’ve asked him if he intends to vote or let an alternate do it but he’s refused to comment.

    Sammy Finkelman (96f386)

  81. @Kevin M:Did you ever notice that people who have always been keen on the State controlling the means of production are on board with global warming hysteria, and propose the State controlling the means of production as the cure.

    A lot of us have noticed that; no matter what the problem is the suggested cure is the same, whether it was AIDS, pollution, poor people without insurance, what have you.

    None of which has any bearing on whether the underlying science is valid. Science can tell you how things are, but not how they ought to be. It can tell you something about what the consequences of doing this or that might be, but not if you should desire those consequences.

    Gabriel Hanna (9b1f4a)

  82. Kasich is termed out for governor, so mending fences with the Trump admin is valuable for him.
    But there has to be some context before he starts smooching the heiny.

    Trumps not going to call him. Kasich can’t do a cold take with the newspaper or pop over to CNN.
    They’ll laugh him out of the place and the story will be Look how desperate John Kasich is to get in the good graces with the President elect. Groveling outside our door.

    He needs a reason for the New York Post to ask him the question he wants to answer.
    Enter ridiculous random elector for Kasich.

    papertiger (c8116c)

  83. I wonder if there’s any truth to this?

    “Trump announces $50B investment by SoftBank.

    Japanese tech company SoftBank will invest $50 billion in the U.S. and introduce 50,000 new jobs in the country, President-elect Donald Trump said Tuesday.

    Trump announced the deal after meeting with SoftBank founder and CEO Masayoshi Son at Trump Tower in New York.

    “Masa (SoftBank) of Japan has agreed to invest $50 billion in the U.S. toward businesses and 50,000 new jobs,” Trump tweeted. “Masa said he would never do this had we (Trump) not won the election!”

    http://thehill.com/policy/technology/309038-trump-announces-50b-investment-by-softbank

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  84. Yes it comes out a sovereign fund with the kingdom.

    narciso (d1f714)

  85. 83. Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 12/7/2016 @ 5:57 am

    I wonder if there’s any truth to this?

    “Trump announces $50B investment by SoftBank.

    The CBS Evening News reported it last night and showed a tiny bit of video of them standing together. Now whether it will be $50 billion and 50,000 jobs – I don’t know how they did the accounting or what caveats there might be.

    It’s a pledge with a four year deadline. And what they intend to use isn’t entrely owned by Softbank, in fact it is partially owned by the government of Saudi Arabia. There was already a $100 billion “Vision fund” a vehicle for investing in technology companies worldwide. It already planned to do a significant portion of its deals in the United States. Trump tweeted: “Masa said he would never do this had we not won the election!” That’s true maybe only about making a pledge.

    By the way, I don’t think the jobs will be extra jobs , because there are always as many jobs as people looking for them more or less, (no economic forecaster thinks otherwise) although some people will have a different employer, and possibly be paid marginally more than they otherwise would be, and, for a very limited time in limited places, the average period of unemployment will be shorter.

    Sammy Finkelman (96f386)

  86. @SammY: because there are always as many jobs as people looking for them more or less,

    Caveat: if equilibrium market wage is less than minimum wage, then there will be fewer hours supplied than demanded,

    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1)

  87. Kasich turned out to be the only guy with integrity in this election and he’s still showing it.

    nk (dbc370)

  88. But I would have resigned as an elector (chimerical) before casting a vote for Trump, myself.

    nk (dbc370)

  89. You’d think that there would be a mechanism to involuntarily remove faithless electors, though. But Texas is an eccentric state.

    I read that there’s division of Texas Rangers whose only job is to stop cattle rustling. I just don’t understand it. Texas has a lot of cattle and of course they’ll rustle when they move through brush or tall grass. It can’t be helped unless you cram them all in feedlots, which I think is cruel.

    On the other hand they’re doing nothing about cow punching, which is even crueler, not to say perverse. Why do they have to punch the poor cows? Why can’t they just herd them? But, no, they even seem to be proud of their cowpunchers like they were pop culture celebrities or something.
    (Shaking my head.)

    nk (dbc370)

  90. Why do they have to punch the poor cows?

    Punching tenderizes the meat while it is still in the cow. Makes it more valuable.

    Chuck Bartowski (bba342)

  91. 86. if equilibrium market wage is less than minimum wage, then there will be fewer hours supplied than demanded,

    No, it’s the same thing. Hours worked and jobs are the same thing except it is hard to combine together separate part time jobs, and there an be a lot of wasted travel time involved.

    The reason a higher minimum wage doesn’t cause an immedate bad effect for too many people is that
    most people are not usually employed at the highest wage rate they can get. The reason that is not so is because of the convience and flexibility of the job or because they abandon the search at some point.

    A minimum wage therefore simply forces people to turn down jobs but it doesn’t toss people out of the labor market if there ensues a very low probability for them to find something. A higher minimum wage limits the number of jobs a person can get and lengthens the time to get one, but only tosses people out of the labor market when there is a very low probability of someone to finding something.

    A lot of analysis fails to take that into account. The employment losses from a higher minimum wage really stem from people not getting an entry level job, and their dropping out or not getting into the labor market takes time to show up.

    The minimum wage is actually way too high or applies to too many jobs. By the way, per pay hour is not really the best way to pay for a lot of things. Maybe pay per day, and there should be penalties for not paying people promptly, and things can be designed soasa not to put any downward pressure on the median wage.

    Now one reason some people just about fall out of the labor market can be because of requirements may be unnecessary (and also because they don’t know where to look) President Barack Obama had some thoughts about making it illegal or something to discriminate against people who did not work recently, or were unemployed longer than others, but he dropped it, and Congress didn’t want to “waste” any tax incentives. Trying not to “waste” tax incentives is a sure way to complicate matters and have them not be effective, but Congess tends to want to be very efficient.

    I think we have two things – structural unemployment, and frictional unemployment, which combined together make up the unemployment rate.

    You get structural unemployment when the probability of someone getting hired is low because of the limited number of jobs a person will be considered for or, in the case of someone looking for a few hours more, the limited number of possibilities. Even such people can probably get a job or find a source of income after enough time. This can be alleviated by a lower minimum wage and higher job turnover. Lower job turnover is touted as great but it is a bug if you want more people employed at better wages.

    Frictional unemployment is the average length of time to get another job. When this goes up, you count more people unemployed, but there aren’t more people permanently unemployed.

    Sammy Finkelman (96f386)

  92. @Sammy: You’re either saying exactly what I did but with way more words, or you are defining “jobs needed” with “jobs filled”, which is a tautology.

    If the market equilibrium price for widget assembly foremen is $5.75 and minimum wage is $6.00, I will not be willing to supply as many hours’ work at $6.00 as people would want to work for $6.00. There will be people who want to work as widget assembly foremen at the $6.00 price who will not be able to. So those FTEs will be short. Those people might find jobs doing something else, true, but the demand for that particular job will exceed supply for as long as those conditions are in effect.

    Aggregate that over an entire economy, and you might find everyone employed at something, but the unfilled demand will still be there.

    If it’s easier to see use “food” as an example. If the market price of a bag of rice is $5.00 but the maximum legal price is $4.00, there will be a shortage of rice, but that does not mean people will starve. It will simply mean that people who want to eat rice will not be able to, so there will still be a shortage of food even though everyone is eating.

    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1)

  93. @89 nk

    There may be a remedy depending on what year Mercedes he drives.

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  94. ?

    nk (dbc370)

  95. Is anyone else old enough to remember when Buffalo Bob brought in a clown-tamer for Clarabell?

    I’m talking reruns, after George Reeves Superman and Leave it to Beaver.

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  96. Nk

    That Rolling Stones guy ran his Mercedes into a tree going so fast the engine came out.

    Just sayin’.

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  97. Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1) — 12/7/2016 @ 8:45 am

    If the market equilibrium price for widget assembly foremen is $5.75 and minimum wage is $6.00, I will not be willing to supply as many hours’ work at $6.00 as people would want to work for $6.00.

    But that’s true about any price. The number of people who want and can work at a certain price doesn’t stay the same. The general demand doesn’t stay the same.

    There will be people who want to work as widget assembly foremen at the $6.00 price who will not be able to.

    This is not an imaginary situation. There are all sorts of jobs that pay above the rate at which people are capable and willing of filling them, especially union jobs. And consider acting.

    What you get is a form of rationing and/or prioritizing who gets the job. Sometimes unnecessary requirements get added, which people may actually believe, so it may look to a casual observer that things are in rquilibrium but it’s achieved by artificially limiting the people eligible. CEOs of companies are another example where wages are high because of limited eligbility.

    The job may also become a sort of property right. We have that with taxi medallions, where there is not a minimum wage but a maximum number of taxis, or with people who get a license where there number of licenses is fixed. Also with fishing permits. After a while, the ownership gets separated from the labor. Sometimes it is gray area of the law.

    Aggregate that over an entire economy, and you might find everyone employed at something, but the unfilled demand will still be there.

    I think what you could say some goods and services aren’t produced taht would be if the price were not kept artificially high.

    Or low also? You say:

    If it’s easier to see use “food” as an example. If the market price of a bag of rice is $5.00 but the maximum legal price is $4.00, there will be a shortage of rice,

    A shortage because the price s kept too low, discouraging sales. If the minimum legal price for abag of rice were $6.00, there would also be less rice.

    Sammy Finkelman (96f386)

  98. Gateway Pundit claims the elector is tied to leftist organizations, FWIW.

    http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/12/busted-texas-rogue-electoral-delegate-chris-suprun-linked-van-jones-think-progress/

    Patricia (5fc097)

  99. 98. It probably could be deduced, or at least strongly suspected, without any specific information, especially after you learn that there is a movement by some Democratic electors to get Republican electors to vote for Kasich. Of course the first big batch of publicity would come from a Republian elector announcing he was so doing.

    Sammy Finkelman (96f386)

  100. A Kansas Elector writes about the way she’s been urged not to vote for Trump:

    http://www.wsj.com/articles/im-staying-faithful-to-trump-1481491214

    Robert B. Reich on Facebook talks about contacts he ahd from 3 Electors (almost certainly Dem) Tells them not to get their hopes up:

    https://www.facebook.com/RBReich/posts/1399924160020176

    Democratic Congressman from Rhode Island justifies any switching of votes by Electors by referring to Russian hacking:

    http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/electoral-college-russian-hack-david-cicilline-232469

    Sammy Finkelman (643dcd)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1014 secs.