Republican And Conservative Exodus From Donald Trump Keeps On Growing

The list of Republican and Conservative public figures who refuse to endorse and support Donald Trump is massive. Following is an incomplete but extensive list.

It includes former elected Republican officials such as:

Senator Norm Coleman of Minnesota
Senator Gordon Humphrey of New Hampshire
Senator Larry Pressler of South Dakota
Senator Olympia Snowe of Maine
Governor Jeb Bush of Florida
Governor William Milliken of Michigan]
Governor George Pataki of New York
Governor Tom Ridge of Pennsylvania
Governor Christine Todd Whitman of New Jersey
Governor Mitt Romney of Massachusetts
Congressman Ron Paul of Texas
Congressman Chris Shays of Connecticut
Congressman J C Watts of Oklahoma
Congressman Vin Weber of Minnesota

It includes elected Republican officials such as:

Senator Susan Collins of Maine
Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina
Senator Mark Kirk of Illinois
Senator Ben Sasse of Nebraska
Congressman Charlie Dent of Pennsylvania
Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lethinen of Florida
Congressman (and former Governor) Mark Sanford of South Carolina
Governor Charlie Baker of Massachusetts
Governor Larry Hogan of Maryland
Governor John Kasich of Ohio

Conservative Spokesmen

Glenn Beck
Mona Charen
Erick Erickson
Jonah Goldberg
Stephen Hayes
Bill Kristol
Jennifer Rubin
Ben Shapiro
Charlie Sykes
George Will
National Review editorially
The Weekly Standard editorially

Conservative and Republican Newspapers

Dallas Morning News
Arizona Republic
Cincinnati Enquirer
Detroit News
Houston Chronicle
New Hampshire Union Leader
Chicago Tribune

National Security Officials

Richard Armitage
Michael Chertoff
Michael Hayden
Robert Kagan
John Negroponte
Brent Scowcroft

Presidential Famiilies

George H. W. Bush
Barbara Bush
George W. Bush
Laura Bush
Jeb Bush
Ron Reagan Jr
Michael Reagan

14 comments on “Republican And Conservative Exodus From Donald Trump Keeps On Growing

  1. D October 5, 2016 5:05 am

    Hello, Ronald (and everyone)!

    I last posted here in late-July. I have been busy with some things that allowed for me to take a break from tuning in on a daily basis this 2016 United States presidential election. (Or that I would be tuning in too much.) And, here we are, in October—and Election Day is between four and five weeks. (It will be Tuesday, November 8, 2016. Last time it was Nov. 8 was in 1988, in between the debuts of ABC’s “Roseanne” and CBS’s “Murphy Brown”—a memorable period for me personally because I was a senior in high school. Our U.S. Presidential elections are, based on calendars, scheduled between November 2 to 8. Every 28 years are the increments of a repeat of a particular number. The next occurrence of Election Day/November 8 won’t be until 2044.)

    I have been following Nate Silver’s “Five Thirty Eight” website just for some context on how this is apparently shaping up—meaning, probable (and likely) results. (That site appears nicely on my smartphone. So does this one.)

    A quick reminder: In 2012, Republican challenger Mitt Romney carried 24 states for 206 electoral votes. (He won Republican pickups of Indiana and North Carolina as well as Nebraska’s 2nd Congressional District.) Incumbent Democratic Party president Barack Obama was re-elected with 26 states, plus District of Columbia, for 332 electoral votes.

    According to Five Thirty Eight, if the status of Tuesday, October 4, 2016 held on Tuesday, November 8, 2016, we would see Hillary Clinton elected over Donald Trump. The map would be a little color-trading of specific states (which is usually what plays out—like trading cards are trading states—for incumbents re-elected to a second term who end up with more electoral votes, over their first election, as was the case with a 1956 Dwight Eisenhower, a 1996 Bill Clinton, and a 2004 George W. Bush).

    Immediately standing out:
    • Donald Trump would win Republican pickups of Iowa and Maine’s 2nd Congressional District. That would be a net gain in electoral votes of +7.
    • Hillary Clinton would counter by winning a Democratic pickup of North Carolina. That would be a net gain in electoral votes of +15.

    The outcome would be:
    • Donald Trump: 24 states, plus Maine’s 2nd Congressional District, for 198 electoral votes.
    • Hillary Clinton: 26 states, plus District of Columbia, for 340 electoral votes.

    Right now, Nate Silver estimates the U.S. Popular Vote’s percentage-points margin for Hillary Clinton would be an average of +4.2. (Five Thirty Eight has three categories of weighing the polls’ numbers: Polls-plus forecast, with Hillary at +3.2; Polls-only forecast, with Hillary at +4.3; and Now-cast, with Hillary at +5.)

    In 2012, Obama’s re-election margin was +3.86. (He received 51.02 nationally to Romney’s 47.16 percent.) My guess is that, if Hillary Clinton flips North Carolina, and has an increased electoral-vote score, her national margin will be at least +4 but will not exceed +6.

    In analyzing those states, North Carolina is the biggest concern for the Trump campaign. A party-pickup winner typically carries all states won by the party’s losing nominee from the previous election cycle. (In other words: 1980 Republican pickup winner Ronald Reagan won all 27 states carried in 1976 by Gerald Ford; 1992 Democratic pickup winner Bill Clinton won all 10 states, plus District of Columbia, carried in 1988 by Michael Dukakis; 2000 Republican pickup winner George W. Bush won all 19 states carried in 1996 by Bob Dole; 2008 Democratic pickup winner Barack Obama won all 19 states, plus District of Columbia, carried in 2004 by John Kerry.) On the Democratic side, the biggest state concern for the Clinton campaign is Iowa. This is a state that has boasted a Democratic tilt since 1984. (Meaning, just two Republicans carried it—1984 Ronald Reagan and 2004 George W. Bush—and they won Iowa with a margin less than what they received in the U.S. Popular Vote.) The last election won by the Democrats while Iowa carried for a losing Republican was 1976. (That year, Jimmy Carter unseated Gerald Ford with a map of states primarily through the south. Ford carried numerous states which are nowadays base states with the Democrats—double-digit electoral vote states like his home state Michigan along with the likes of California, Illinois, New Jersey, and Washington.) This 2016 election is likely to see Iowa produce a Republican tilt. (That may be the start of a new trend that should concern Democrats. From 2004 to 2012, Iowa had been at a Democratic tilt of about +2. Along with then-bellwether-turned-Lean Democratic New Mexico, Iowa was the only state in the columns for both popular-vote winners Al Gore, in 2000, and George W. Bush, in 2004.) As of October 4, 2016, Nate Silver’s map shows Iowa is on the cusp of returning to blue. But, I’d say that, no matter its official color with Election 2016, it may tilt Republican by as much as +5—meaning that would be the margin Hillary Clinton needs nationally to more confidently retain carriage of Iowa. (Maine #02 is about a couple more points, compared to Iowa, for the Republicans—meaning, it looks highly likely Trump will succeed in flipping it.)

    Now, I am posting this—here on Wednesday, October 5, 2016 (before 06:00 a.m. ET)—because I don’t know when my next post will be. (I have a negative viewpoint.) And I think having some sense of what is playing out is important just for having an awareness. There can be change over the next month. But, numbers wise, I wouldn’t anticipate it being dramatic in impact. And it could be additional support for Hillary Clinton. With keeping in mind that Elections 2008 and 2012 averaged 130 million votes cast for president of the United States, I don’t think she is in the potential position to expand beyond the possibly 5.2 to 7.8 million raw-vote margin those +4 to +6 percentage points suggests. I don’t picture the popular vote won with a majority. Trump and Clinton will combine between 88 and 92 percent. That would suggest, at worst, Hillary at 47 to Trump’s 43 percent or, at best, Hillary with 48 to Trump’s 42 percent. Those numbers combine for 90 percent. Adjust that if necessary. In the case of Gary Johnson, his percentage will get that up to combining for 97 percent. Jill Stein will probably get 2 percent, possibly 2.5 percent. (If she hits, draw back a little the Clinton and Trump and possibly Johnson percentages.) Any level of a victory for a third consecutive presidential election cycle won by the Democrats would be appreciated by the party and their voters. The prevailing Democrats, since after the 1980s, have had electoral-vote scores in the 300s. So, even with the ups and downs, this may end up being a reasonably and electorally stable outcome.

  2. Ronald October 5, 2016 6:32 am

    Welcome back, D.

    We all appreciate your great contributions to this blog.

    I plan to give a final projection before the election, and I am surprised that you do not mention Ohio as a possible flip at this point to the Republicans.

    We shall see how things develop over the next month, but thanks again for chiming in, so to say! LOL

  3. D October 5, 2016 7:05 am


    I know Ohio is possible as a Republican pickup for Donald Trump while Hillary Clinton wins a Democratic hold of the presidency.

    In 2012, Ohio was the only state whose gender-voting percentages for Barack Obama (45 percent from men; 55 percent with his winning women) matched the outcome in the U.S. Popular Vote. (Women were 53 and men 47 percent the size of the vote cast nationwide. That’s why it titled to 51 percent as won by Obama.)

    In 2008, Colorado was the only state which matched gender-voting percentages. (49 percent from men and 56 percent from women went to Obama in both Colorado and the U.S. Popular Vote.)

    This does not mean that there is some guarantee that a radical shift cannot happen. But, part of what a shift is about is making an adjustment (one election cycle followed by the next of the same nature). And Obama had no problem carrying Colorado with re-election in 2012. (It was the tipping-point state in 2012. I think it may have been in 2008. Nate Silver lately suggests it will be again here in 2016.)

    If Ohio flips and carries for Trump while Hillary wins the presidency, it’s because her popular-vote margin was more narrow (like +0.01 to, say, +2.50). But, with Ohio having been within five points from the national margins since its unbroken bellwether streak started in 1964, and that it has been within three points in 2004, 2008, and 2012…I’m guessing it will once again for this year’s winner.

  4. Paul Doyle October 5, 2016 7:08 am

    Great analysis,D.
    Can’t wait until the next November 8th election day in 2044, when Chelsea Clinton battles one of the Bush grandchildren for the Presidency…

  5. D October 5, 2016 7:16 am

    Paul Doyle,

    If that happens, I will hopefully be dead.

    (And I am not kidding. I was born in 1971. My father is still alive at age 84. I lost my mother in 1998 when she was 62 just short of 63. She had a December birthday. And I would rather not live to see what you mentioned just as I am pretty sure many of the dead before the year 2000 are better off for not having been around for the George W. Bush debacle of a presidency.)


  6. Ronald October 5, 2016 7:20 am

    Leave it to Paul to add a tone of levity! LOL

    What would I do without the two of you contributing to this blog? 🙂

    I would hope that we would have different leadership, not the same families competing ever once again!

  7. Paul Doyle October 5, 2016 7:27 am

    My comment was more tongue planted firmly in cheek. I am certain that you will be around in 2044 to give your insights on that election.
    I come from a gene pool that does not include longevity on either side of the family. Yet, continued advances in medical science and lifestyles constantly evolve, so with a positive outlook, I am hoping to vote in 2044 when I will be in my early nineties! You have longevity on one side of the family thus far, so I would run with that!

  8. Ronald October 5, 2016 7:33 am

    I have joked with students how I do NOT wish to miss the Election of 2044, as it would mark a milestone–39 days short of 100 years of age! LOL hahahaha! 🙂

  9. Paul Doyle October 5, 2016 8:17 am

    Don’t worry, Professor,
    I hear that the Centennials will be the new demographic
    In 2044….

  10. Paul Doyle October 5, 2016 8:31 am

    On the serious side, Professor, I agree Ohio is a real toss-up.
    Traditional Democratic counties have been hit hard by the economy and the opiod epidemic.
    Columbiana County has traditionally been Democratic and has been lulled into another form of narcotic,– the false promises of Donald Trump– the Pied Piper of illusions.

  11. Ronald October 5, 2016 8:38 am

    There you go again, Paul! 🙂 LOL

  12. D October 5, 2016 10:23 am

    Paul Doyle—I knew what you were getting at. I just wanted to let you know how I would feel if I could know ahead of time that that would actually play out. (Ronald knows.)

    * * *

    I want to add to what I wrote earlier. The margins spread between Ohio and the U.S. Popular Vote from 2004 and 2012 were less than a full point. In 2004, George W. Bush won re-election with carriage of Ohio by +2.11 and the U.S. Popular Vote by +2.46, for a spread of just 0.35. In 2012, Barack Obama won re-election with carriage of Ohio by +2.98 and the U.S. Popular Vote by +3.86, a spread of just 0.88. Now, going back to 2008, when it was a term-limited incumbent [Bush] and we were getting a new president, Ohio moved with the nation. We shifted nearly 10 points to flip Democratic for Barack Obama. Ohio didn’t go that far, but it shifted far enough to become a likewise Democratic pickup for Obama. (He won Ohio by +4.59 and the U.S. Popular Vote by +7.26, a spread of 2.67.) Over the last five elections of 1996, 2000, 2004, 2008, and 2012, the largest spread between Ohio and the U.S. Popular Vote was in 2000. (George W. Bush won Ohio by +3.51 and Al Gore won the U.S. Popular Vote by +0.52, a spread of 4.03. But, what I said about 1964 and no more than 5 points in spread—Ohio vs. the U.S. Popular Vote—still holds.)

    I think the chances that Ohio votes again for this year’s winner are at least 90 percent.

    One thing I want to add is this: When looking at some of these pollsters’ reports, some numbers do and, yet, do not jive. On Monday, October 3, 2016, Quinnipiac came out with one saying that Hillary Clinton leads Donald Trump in Florida by +5 but Donald Trump is winning over Ohio by +5. That is a 10-point spread between two states which would carry differently if that were to materialize on Election Day.

    The problem is this: The pollsters poll typically between 500 to 2,000 people. They can consider those numbers. They can blow them up by a larger scale. They almost always give us a margin of error. But, what they don’t do is address voting patterns.

    Since Ohio’s unbroken streak of voting for presidential election winners started in 1964, there has been just one presidential election in which Florida did not carry the same as Ohio: 1992. (Bill Clinton did not flip Florida in that election; it held for an unseated George Bush.)

    In the last five elections, looking at the margins in percentage points spreads between Florida and Ohio, 1996 was 0.66; 2000 was 3.50; 2004 was 2.90; 2008 was 1.78; and 2012 was 2.10. (They averaged a spread of 2.18.)

    In recent elections, winning Florida by a percentage-points margin of +1 was winning the state’s popular vote by about 80,000; winning Ohio by +1 was winning the state’s popular vote by about 55,000. (This is with estimates of 5,000 increments for each of the two states.)

    So, this Quinnipiac polls report would have Hillary win Florida by about 400,000 votes. It would have Trump win a Republican pickup of Ohio by about 275,000 votes. That would be a spread of 675,000 between Florida and Ohio. (Please keep this in mind.)

    • • • 1996/2000/2004/2008/2012: FLORIDA vs. OHIO • • •
    • In 1996, Bill Clinton won both states. Florida gave him a voting margin of just over 300,000. He won Ohio by just under 290,000 votes. The spread was just 10,000 votes. (The least dramatic of these examples.)
    • In 2000, when George W. Bush flipped both states, he won Florida by just over 500 votes. He won Ohio by about 165,000 votes. The difference was nearly 165,000 votes.
    • Go back to 2004, with George W. Bush, and he won Florida by about 380,000 votes. He won Ohio by just under 120,000. The difference was about 260,000 votes. (That’s more dramatic.)
    • With his first election in 2008, Obama won Florida by just over 235,000 votes. He won Ohio by just under 265,000 votes. The spread between those two states was around 30,000 votes.
    • In 2012, Barack Obama won Florida by just under 75,000 votes. He won Ohio by just over 165,000 votes. So, that was a spread of roughly 90,000 votes. In those two large states, that isn’t that much.

    The largest raw-vote margins spread, at any point in the last five elections, between how Florida and Ohio voted was 260,000 votes. Those five election cycles had Florida and Ohio with an average of just over a 100,000-vote spread between them. And in three of those five cycles, there was less than a 100,000-vote spread between Florida and Ohio.

    This Quinnipiac poll suggests the two states will carry differently for the first time since 1992. That Hillary Clinton will experience additional Democratic level of support of just over 300,000 votes in Florida and that Donald Trump will flip Ohio by shifting around 400,000 votes toward him.

    As I mentioned a little earlier, and it bares repeating, that would make the spread between these two states a whopping 675,000 votes with how Florida and Ohio would get carried—and to do so officially differently from each other.

    I don’t believe that what is being reported by Quinnipiac’s poll will end up happening in this election. I think the two states’ difference will be no more than, and I’m being generous, 200,000 votes.

    This is more reason why I think both Florida and Ohio are going to once again side with this year’s presidential election—and, as of now, I would predict that Hillary wins over Trump and carries both Florida and Ohio in the process.

  13. Ronald October 5, 2016 10:47 am

    Thanks for that additional analysis, D! You are amazing! 🙂

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.