Trick or Trick

This year, both major party candidates are tricking the American voter. The many lies and deceptions of Donald Trump are hardly worth repeating at this point—from his policy flip-flops to his refusal to release his tax returns, to his past praise of his supposed opponent. The evidence continues to mount that he is conducting this campaign either as a favor for his friend Hillary Clinton, or as an ad campaign for Trump TV, or both.

And Clinton herself is no better. Her own lies and deceptions have been on public record for decades, from Whitewater to Benghazi to her private email server and the pay-to-play schemes of the Clinton Foundation. Leaked emails from campaign chairman John Podesta show her discussing how she has a “public position” and “private position” on certain issues, and now word emerges that she may have illegally coordinated with SuperPACs. Meanwhile, the FBI reopens their investigation over the mishandling of classified information.

And the one candidate who emerges from 2016 with a “lying” nickname is Ted Cruz.

At this late stage, there’s just no other way to say it: Both Trump and Clinton are god-awful candidates, and would make god-awful presidents.

So choose neither. Look at Evan McMullin (especially if you’re in Utah!) Give Gary Johnson a chance. Check out Darrell Castle, the Constitution Party nominee, or someone else. Just remember that it’s not necessary to vote for someone who’s neither run a scam university nor stored state secrets on a private server in her basement.

Trump and Clinton backers will say that a vote for a third option is a vote wasted, that only the Democratic or Republican nominee stand a chance of winning. But that only remains true as long as the voters believe it to be true.

This, Too, Shall Pass

It seems as if this election has lasted a lifetime. I can barely remember a time in politics before Donald Trump. As an example, go back and watch the YouTube videos of Mitt Romney and Barack Obama at the 2012 Al Smith dinner, and compare their remarks to those of Clinton and Trump last week. Jarring, isn’t it?

But no matter how depressing, terrifying, or apocalyptic this election season might seem, remember: It is only a moment in time, and nothing lasts forever. Speaking in 1859, Abraham Lincoln said,

“It is said an Eastern monarch once charged his wise men to invent him a sentence, to be ever in view, and which should be true and appropriate in all times and situations. They presented him the words: "And this, too, shall pass away." How much it expresses! How chastening in the hour of pride! How consoling in the depths of affliction!”

We are almost to the end, of this season at least. There are only eleven more days until Election Day, when Hillary Clinton will likely be elected the 45^th President. After that, of course, the next phase, the hard work, begins. Conservatives across the country will need to help rebuild the Republican Party, if it can be rebuilt, and return it to its roots. We will need to push back the forces of Trumpism within the movement. And we will need to do all of this while opposing the far-Left agenda of Hillary Clinton.

But we will be able to start the process of rebuilding, of repairing the damage left by Trump’s nomination. And, I pray, with a defeat of significant magnitude Trump and his loyalists will be mortally weakened, and the alt-right will crawl back into obscurity. Either way, the extreme vitriol and division of this campaign season will be over. The divisions over fiscal cliffs and government shutdowns seem like simpler times.

This, too, shall pass.

Defining Down Conservatism

The values which conservatism seeks to preserve are timeless—ideals of individual freedom, equal opportunity under the law, and market-based competition—but what I would call the Modern Age of conservatism really began in 1964, with the nomination of Barry Goldwater and the normalization of the Republican Party as the nation’s major conservative party. It brought the Founding-era ideas of classical liberalism into the 20^th century, rejuvenating them after decades of nearly unanswered assault by progressives, and largely codified what it meant to be a conservative. Conservatives, overall, supported a limited government of enumerated powers, as defined by the clear text and meaning of the Constitution; a strong national defense; and a respect for free enterprise. This general definition changed somewhat over the succeeding decades, most notably with the addition of the Religious Right to the conservative coalition, but stayed basically constant through the Reagan and Clinton years.

To be sure, there have always been arguments about what exactly defined a conservative, and who exactly got to define such things. But a generally agreed-upon definition remained in place until the presidency of George W. Bush, when some conservatives gradually began to believe that a “conservative” policy was whatever a Republican president defined it to be. Medicare expansion became conservative. Harriet Miers became a conservative Supreme Court nominee. Increased federal spending and a strengthening executive branch became key to “conservative” victory, as long it was a Republican president doing those things.

When Barack Obama took office, conservatives retreated and reassessed. Many—though not all—recognized their mistake in putting party allegiance ahead of principle. Many recommitted to the conservative vision espoused by Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan. Again, there were differences over the exact definition of that vision, and who precisely defined it, but these differences seemed minor while liberals controlled the White House.

Which brings us to today. The Republican Party has now nominated a man who never misses an opportunity to blast free trade, who says that Planned Parenthood “does wonderful things”, who openly discusses the possibility of withdrawing from NATO, and who says of the nation’s many problems, “I alone can fix it.” A vision of constitutional, limited government this is not.

But yet many of Trump’s backers attempt to defend it as the very embodiment of conservatism. They attempt to shape principle to conform to the short-term agenda of a political party and a single man, forcing the principle to fit the candidate, rather than forcing the candidate to adhere to the principle.

There are similarities to the defense of George Bush’s every policy as conservative, but there is a massive difference as well. No one, not even his opponents, doubted that Bush was a man of great faith and decency, who respected life in all its forms and closely adhered to his own principles, even when they differed from standard conservatism. He was a strong conservative in some areas, particularly in the pro-life arena, and a moderate in others.

Trump, on the other hand, has demonstrated himself to be nothing more than an opportunist in every conceivable area of policy. He changes positions on a weekly basis, and does not apologize for his personal failures. And all the while, his surrogates defend his every action as consistently conservative, making a mockery of themselves, their political master, and the very term “conservative” in the process.

If Trump loses in two weeks, there will still be a chance to mitigate the damage. But if he wins, it will only continue and become even worse. Conservatism will continue to be defined ever downward, until it ceases to have any meaning at all.

Checking In: The State of the House, Senate, and Gubernatorial Elections

With exactly two weeks to go, now is the ideal time to revisit my overview of the major Congressional and gubernatorial races from back in September (the original pieces can be found here, here, and here). Thirty-four Senators are up for reelection or are retiring, along with twelve governors and all 435 members of the House—so in the interest of space, I’ll only spend time on those races where something fundamental has changed since the original assessment.

The House: Not many individual races seem to have shifted significantly in the past two months, but there is a growing perception among Democrats that they are, if still unlikely to win back control of the House, at least better positioned than they were even one month ago. Three orange guesses as to why.

As in September, Democrats look likely to pick up several seats. And as in September, no particularly well-known members look likely to lose their races—although longstanding incumbents like John Mica in Florida and Freedom Caucus member Scott Garrett in New Jersey are struggling more than expected. Again, three guesses why.

The Senate: Back in September, I listed five races that I viewed as the most competitive in the country (Nevada, Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and New Hampshire); along with five that had the potential to join their ranks should circumstances change (meaning Democratic improvements in North Carolina, Arizona, and Missouri, and Republican improvements in Illinois and Wisconsin). Since then, Nevada, New Hampshire, and Pennsylvania have remained virtually unchanged, with the margins for all three in the latest RealClearPolitics polling averages less than two points. In Ohio, Rob Portman is now leading consistently by double digits, and Democrats seem to have all but given up on the race. And in Florida, national Democrats also seem to have given up on the Senate seat and begun focusing on the presidential race, as Rubio has also consistently led in the polls, albeit by a smaller margin—although the past several surveys have also shown his lead shrinking somewhat. Whether that trend continues through Election Day remains to be seen, although it would still be a massive shock if he actually lost.

Of the five sleeper races, Arizona looks to be out of reach for Democrats, as John McCain continues to put it away despite Trump falling behind Clinton in the normally red state. The last public poll had McCain leading his Democratic opponent by sixteen points. Missouri and North Carolina, on the other hand, have only gotten closer in the past two months, with surveys in both states showing races that are statistically tied. Trump runs about even with Mitt Romney’s 2012 showing in Missouri, but about four points behind Romney in North Carolina, and behind Senator Richard Burr by the same amount—implying that Burr would likely be doing at least marginally better with another candidate at the top of the ticket.

Another race has become much more competitive since early September, as former Senator Evan Bayh made a late announcement over the summer that he would try to reclaim his old Indiana Senate seat for the Democrats. With Republicans defending an open seat with a candidate who has never before held statewide office, against a former Senator who has strong name recognition in the state, Indiana could be another state that determines the balance of power in the Senate. Bayh has held a fairly consistent polling lead, although it has fluctuated between one and seven points in just the past month, and persistent charges that he hasn’t truly lived in the state for years make come back to cost him in the end.

So, overall, control of the Senate could tip either way, although at this point a slim Democratic majority looks most likely.

Governors: As far as general race ratings, little has changed over the past two months. Democrats are still certain to hold Delaware; Republicans, North Dakota and Utah. Missouri, Indiana, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Oregon, and Washington have all been polled fairly recently, and all continue to display similar results: a small Democratic lead in Missouri; larger, but still surmountable, Democratic leads in Oregon and Washington; and extremely tight races in North Carolina and New Hampshire. There have now been several polls conducted of Indiana since Mike Pence was chosen as Trump’s running mate and was replaced as the Republican nominee for governor, enough to show that John Gregg, the Democratic nominee, has benefitted the most from the change. He has led by twelve and five points, respectively, in the last two polls, although the race could still tighten.

Unfortunately, because of the focus on the presidential and Senate races, only one gubernatorial poll has been conducted in Vermont since September, and none at all in Montana or West Virginia. That single poll showed the Republican nominee ahead by one point, seeming to imply that my prediction that the race could be close is accurate. But a single poll is nearly meaningless without corroboration—and there is still no data to show whether there are similarly tight races in West Virginia and Montana. With the attention of the major pollsters fixed on the Senate and gubernatorial races, unfortunately, it looks like the first hard indications will come on Election Night itself.

Don't Forget The Down-Ballot Races

To say that the presidential race has earned a lot of attention would be an understatement. Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton are the two most hated candidates for national office in history, and if there is one thing Trump knows how to do, it’s creating headlines.

But regardless of the candidates, no single election should be so important. No single candidate for office, even one vying for President of the United States, deserves such attention to the exclusion of all else. The next president will be decided on November 8, but so will the outcomes of hundreds of other races across the country, from Senate and House elections, to control of the governor’s office in a dozen states, to contests for city council and other local offices. All will affect the lives of ordinary voters at least as much, if not more, than the question of whether Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump will be the next President.

I’ll be the first to admit that I’ve been part of the problem. Most of the articles here at The Conservatory are about Trump. And likely will continue to be, at least through November, simply because he’s become an important part of any political conversation. But focus on down-ballot races should not be lost in the shuffle.

And this goes beyond control of Congress and the governorships. Tomorrow, I’ll revisit my initial assessments of those races from early September (which can be found here, here, and here). But the down ballot means the unsexy stuff too. State judges, board of education members, and charter amendments can all be just as important as the top of the ticket.

An example: I got my sample ballot in the mail about ten days ago. It runs three pages, beginning with the presidential race, followed by the contest for Maryland’s open Senate seat and the House seat for the Third District. Following that are about a half-dozen retention questions for various judges and members of the state Board of Education, a proposed constitutional amendment, and another half-dozen proposed changes to the county charter.

It would be easy—and perfectly understandable—for a voter to select choices for President and Congress, and leave the rest blank. Or, worse, select options at random, thereby nullifying the votes of people who took the time to research each question and make an informed decision.

A quick Google search of the first judge on the ballot turned up nothing objectionable, but after only a few minutes looking for information on the second judge, Dan Friedman, I found an article calling him the “chief architect” of the defense of a far-reaching state gun control bill passed in 2013.

Despite being a blue state, Maryland boasts many gun owners and proud Second Amendment defenders. But with all the attention and media coverage, both national and local, focused on the presidential race and control of the Senate, how many will bother spending the time to research judges?

Do your homework. Don’t go into the voting both unprepared. Judge Dan Friedman could have just as much of an impact on your life as President Hillary Clinton.

Again, Trump Supporters Prove That They've Become What They Swore to Destroy

Back in June, I wrote a post titled “Trump Supporters, You Have Become The Very Thing YouSwore To Destroy”. I won’t repeat it all now, but the basic point was that, in their rush to defend their Dear Leader against all threats, Trump’s most fervent backers embrace many of the things for which they once derided both Democrats and the Republican establishment.

And so it continues, as the election reaches the final twenty days.

For months, Trump backers have been making Bill Clinton’s treatment of women, and Hillary Clinton’s attempts to discredit and effectively destroy those same women once they came forward, a core part of the campaign. Trump himself has become increasingly willing to bring up the allegations as his standing in the polls crumbles. Bill Clinton is not in fact on the ballot, as the Clinton camp repeatedly reminds us, but it is also true that his wife repeatedly trashed the women who accused her husband of sexual assault. Whether the issue is fair game is debatable (I would side with Trump on this one and say that it is).

But regardless, if you’re going to bring up charges of sexual assault against your opponent’s husband, you’d better not have charges of assault and rape in your own closet. And if you do, you’d better not turn around and smear your accusers, in the exact same manner you accuse your opponent of doing.

This is hardly the first time someone has noted the hypocrisy of Trump supporters, and of Trump himself—the entire campaign is one big pile of hypocrisy. And plenty of others have remarked upon the amazing double standard of the Trump campaign toward victims of sexual assault, ever since Trump’s first accusers began to emerge. But the blatancy of the double standard here is simply incredible. Trump goes straight from attacking Clinton for destroying the reputations of the women who accused her husband of sexual assault, to attempting to destroy the reputations of the women accusing him, Trump, of sexual assault. One really has to wonder whether, on some level, Trump or his surrogates recognize the sheer audaciousness of their arguments, or whether they’ve actually begun to believe their own s---.

But in any case, the Trump campaign opened Pandora’s Box, and now they have to reap what they sow. If Hillary Clinton must account for her husband’s actions, then Donald Trump must account for his own.

Thoughts on the Final Debate

The third and final presidential debate was much like the first two—contentious and bitter, with Clinton being her typical robotic self (“I’m a real person!”) and Trump being Trump. One welcome change was the moderator. Chris Wallace may well be the first moderator of a presidential debate not to be widely condemned afterward by one side or the other. He asked hard-hitting, substantive questions of both candidates, and was the model of the tough-but-fair journalist that have become all too rare in general election debates.

And there the differences with prior debates end. Madame Robot came out ahead of Trump, mainly due to the latter’s slide during the final half. Trump has noticeably improved his performance since the first general debate last month, and especially since the early primary season debates, but he still reverts to form the longer he’s on stage. The interruptions become more frequent and blustery; the outlandish statements begin to flow more easily.

If there was one defining moment of this phenomenon, and of the debate as a whole, it came when Trump refused, repeatedly, to guarantee that he would accept the outcome of the election. “I’ll keep you in suspense,” were his final words on the subject. Democrats’ indignant claims that to question the outcome of an election is unprecedented ring hollow—Florida, 2000, anyone?—but with that one response, Trump did more damage to himself with independent voters than the Clinton campaign could hope to achieve. As always, Trump  came through for Clinton in the end.

Overall, there was no game-changer once again. Clinton probably won narrowly. And Trump did nothing to prevent himself from suffering a humiliating defeat in three weeks.

The Stupidity of Nominating A Businessman Like Trump

Notice the qualifier in the title. Ordinarily having a president with business experience would be of great benefit to the country; it’s one of the qualities that would have made Mitt Romney such a good president (of course, the Democrats managed to turn one of his greatest strengths against him). But Donald Trump, though he appeals to many people who generally call for “running government like a business”, is not a businessman in the same league as Romney.

Simply put, Romney was successful at business. Trump was not. Though the Clinton camp is making much of the fact that Trump’s leaked 1995 tax returns suggest that he may have paid no income tax for up to eighteen years, the greater emphasis should actually be on the phenomenon that would have made that possible in the first place—namely, his billion-dollar loss.

Trump in the 1990’s was on the brink of financial ruin, as detailed in The Choice 2016 and summarized by John Fund at National Review. Trump survived, Fund says, only by “shifting from real-estate deals to licensing his well-known name.” Not exactly the mark of a successful businessman, or a promising sign for those eager for business acumen in the Oval Office.

The fact is that Trump is just not a good businessman, as has been adequately documented throughout 2016—from his massive business gambles and losses in the 90’s to his four bankruptcies. Not only does he have absolutely no experience in government—there’s a reason every single president has either been a general or had previous political experience—but he’s been monumentally bad at his signature enterprise.

The only thing he’s really been good at has been reality TV and branding. And it’s really not an option for America to escape debt and budget deficits through licensing deals.

I'm Voting for Evan McMullin for President

In July, when I first decided to support Gary Johnson for President, he seemed likely to be the only semi-viable third-party candidate on the ballot come November. More importantly, he was the only notable candidate for President who had displayed the temperament and character necessary to be an effective Commander in Chief, and his platform actively pushed for several policies appealing to conservatives searching for an alternative to Trump and Clinton—including fiscal responsibility and the appointment of originalist justices to the Supreme Court.

When Evan McMullin announced his candidacy as an independent conservative in August, I initially believed him to be little more than a curiosity. He had joined the race late, with no name recognition whatsoever, no infrastructure, and no outside support. I assumed that, rather than a viable third option for conservatives disgusted with Trump, he was yet another of the hundreds of people who run for president each election cycle merely for the novelty and excitement.

The past two months have proven me wrong.

Far from fading into the background of an election season dominated by outsized personalities, McMullin has been making campaign stops across the country, appearing on every TV station and radio program that will have him, and aggressively reaching out to disaffected Republicans and independents. His platform is not merely a “good enough” offering of the sort embraced by the Libertarian ticket, which, while it has much to offer conservatives, is troublingly liberal in areas such as immigration, drug legalization, and the death penalty. McMullin’s platform, in contrast, is unashamedly conservative—from embracing enforcement of immigration law and a solid pro-life stand, to supporting fiscal responsibility, the rule of law, and the preservation of the Constitution.

In short, a platform worthy of wholehearted support by conservatives everywhere.

And if the prospect of supporting a bold, conservative candidate for President in 2016 wasn’t incentive enough, McMullin has also proven himself on the campaign trail to be a man of integrity, character, and decency, who would honor the office once held by Washington and Lincoln.

To be sure, McMullin has as little chance of becoming President as does Gary Johnson, and trying to decide which of the two to vote for may seem like a meaningless endeavor. But in 2016, the possibility of voting for a presidential candidate with both strong moral character and a realistic chance of victory is long gone. But voters should never lose sight of their duty to choose the person they believe to be the absolute best option, regardless of an ability to win. For President, in 2016, Evan McMullin is that option.

The Insult of Not Allowing Gary Johnson to Debate

Once again, Gary Johnson was excluded from the presidential debate, and with the final debate next week it looks unlikely he will make the 15% polling threshold necessary to participate in that one, as well. He currently hovers around 7% in the RealClearPolitics average; Jill Stein seems unable to break 3%, and never had much of a chance to make the debates.

Johnson, on the other hand, has been on the cusp of 15% national support in several individual polls dating back to August, and has declined in recent weeks only after his exclusion from the debates created a perception among many voters that he simply wasn’t relevant. That fact in itself should be a major embarrassment for the Commission on Presidential Debates—shouldn’t it be the role of a debate performance itself to disbar candidates from office in the minds of voters, rather than a candidate’s exclusion from the debates altogether?

The fact is that, while Johnson’s support may be plateauing in national polls, 7% is still hugely respectable for a third party candidate, and if it holds through Election Day would be the highest since Ross Perot in 1996. He is actually competitive with both Clinton and Trump in winning outright voters under 35, and has been endorsed by more print publications than Trump, including major newspapers in Michigan, Illinois, Virginia, and New Hampshire. A solid majority of voters nationally believe he should be included in the debates. And he regularly exceeds 15% in polls of several states, including New Hampshire and his home state of New Mexico—where a poll released last week showed Johnson at 24% support overall, just a few points behind both Trump and Clinton.

With numbers and support like that, coupled with the fact that Trump, Clinton, and Johnson are the only three presidential candidates with ballot access in all fifty states, the Commission’s decision to exclude the Libertarian from debates becomes increasingly hard to defend, except to the staunchest of Clinton and Trump supporters.

It's Too Late To Drop Trump From The Ticket. Good.

Despite the dozens of top Republicans now calling on Donald Trump to drop out of the race, it’s almost certainly too late—one of many reasons why so many wantedto pick an alternate nominee back in July. Ballots have been printed. Early voting has started. That ship sailed long ago.

Which is just as well. Those of us who opposed Trump from the beginning, who said for months that he would be a disastrous candidate who would hurt both the party and the conservative movement to a degree not seen in modern history, tried everything. We opposed him during the primary, getting behind any candidate who could potentially stop him. We opposed him at the convention, trying to unbind the delegates and therefore allow for the selection of a new nominee. We warned everyone who would listen, from elected officials, delegates, and RNC members to ordinary voters, how much harm would come from a Trump nomination.

And we were ignored, silenced, and in some cases even threatened. Profit was put above principle. And those who remained steadfast in their #NeverTrump convictions sought out third-party and independent candidates they could support with a clear conscience, writing off the GOP presidential ticket as a lost cause.

And now, a month before the election, those same members of Republican leadership who embraced Trump over Cruz, the last best chance to defeat him in the primaries, and who applauded the efforts to silence all dissent at the RNC, are finally looking for a way to evict the orange menace? I don’t think so. You had your chance.

You now own him. You will have to answer to the voters, for why you embraced him for months when he could have been stopped. Logistically, it’s too late. And in any case, those who once supported Trump against members of their own party deserve to reap what they have sowed.

#FreeTheDelegates Is Looking Pretty Good Right Now

Remember, at the Republican National Convention in July, how there was a movement to allow convention delegates to vote their conscience and nominate someone other than Donald Trump for President? Remember how proponents of the rule change warned that Trump was unelectable, that his nomination would hand the Presidency to Hillary Clinton, that more scandals were undoubtedly awaiting the light of day, and that he could sink Republican majorities in Congress, along with public perception of the GOP for years to come? How important it was to unite the party by having an open process and giving the duly elected delegates a say in determining the nominee?

And remember how the RNC, controlled by the Trump campaign, shut down that movement, denied even a simple request for a roll call vote on the rules, and attempted to forcibly silence all those pushing to free the delegates?

Fast forward to today, when the ranks of those calling on Trump to exit the race continue to swell, and now include everyone from the staunchest conservatives to members of leadership, from Mike Lee and Carly Fiorina to John Thune and Lisa Murkowski, and beyond. Dozens of Republican members of Congress have announced they will not vote for Trump and called on him to exit the race, in just the forty-eight hours following the release of the latest Trump tape.

If only someone had warned the RNC months ago that this would happen. If only there had been some way for the party to drop Trump back in July, then there would be a new nominee firmly in place by now, instead of dealing with this chaos a month before Election Day.

The RNC could have taken the pain and intraparty chaos in July, or in October. By default, they chose the latter, and now they are suffering the consequences.

Put simply: You were warned.

My Thoughts on Last Night's Debate

Unlike the first debate, in which Trump was blown out of the water, you could tell that he had done at least a little debate prep before last night. He was prepared for the questions about the leaked tape at the beginning (and of course there was no excuse for him not to be prepared). But he was also prepared for the rest of the debate, at least somewhat. He doubtlessly did better this time, to the point where, unlike in the first debate, it’s more difficult to say objectively who won. I think Clinton had the upper hand overall, but it was close.

Regardless, there were at least two points where Trump hurt himself. We’ll get a better sense of how badly in the coming days.

The first came in the opening minutes, when Trump was being questioned about his comments about women on the leaked tapes. He apologized, but at the same time defended himself, saying it was just “locker room talk”. Bad, but not unexpected. Whether it will be enough to stop more Republicans from jumping ship remains to be seen.

But then Anderson Cooper repeatedly asked Trump whether he had ever engaged in actions mirroring his words—whether he had ever “grabbed women by the p----.” Trump at first ignored the question entirely, and then finally said, “No, of course not,” dismissively, and continued with his original train of thought.

That response will hurt him, with both voters and elected officials wondering whether they should rescind their endorsements. Seeming to not want to even answer what should be such an easy question will create doubts. Was his denial sincere? Did he actually do those things?

The second point came when Trump, discussing Russia and Syria, said that he hadn’t talked to Mike Pence about the issue, and disagreed with his running mate’s stated position—i.e., the position opposing dictators.

There are rumors that Pence is livid about the snub, as he has a right to be, but the bigger problem may be with those Republicans still on the fence about repudiating Trump. Pence was chosen in large part to reassure Republicans, to send a signal that Trump was surrounding himself with conservative advisors who could help him. Many Republicans are supporting Trump solely because of Pence’s place on the ticket. An open admission that Trump is actively ignoring the man who was supposed to be his most important hire and advisor is not going to sit well with a lot of people.

To be sure, Clinton had bad moments too (especially her comparison of herself to Abraham Lincoln), but overall they were not huge game-changers. But Trump’s snub of Mike Pence, and especially his lack of anything resembling sincere remorse, will come back to hurt him. The battle was close, but the election is still on track to be a resounding Clinton victory.

If You Abandon Principle for Victory, What's The Point of Either?

Many Trump backers—those who recognize the fact that he is no conservative, or even a moderate—argue that those of us who are still defiantly #NeverTrump must get behind the nominee so that “we can win”. The Republican nominee, whoever that person may be or whatever their statements and positions on the issues, is apparently deserving of our automatic support. “So that we can win and beat Hillary!”

This is the same set who for years as argued that conservatives must give up, or at least compromise on, certain core issues in order to win. “Then once we’re in office, we can accomplish conservative goals.”

Of course, once in office everything revolves around the next election. Opponents are already fundraising and conducting opposition research. So then conservatives must compromise a little more.

When it begins, it’s all about winning in the name of achieving conservative goals. Then, over time, it becomes all about the winning, with very little else to show for it. The professionals urge us to compromise, just this once, to win. Then we must give a little more. And then a little more. Until, one day, everything is done in the name of winning. Everything is about achieving a Republican Senate, or House, or White House, with very little thought to what comes after. What, substantively, will differentiate a Republican Congress or Presidency from a Democratic one?

Too many begin to believe that parties are just like sports teams, that we should automatically support everyone who wears the same jersey, and oppose everyone who wears a different jersey. This has been a constant struggle within the conservative movement and the Republican Party for years, but Trump has exacerbated the tension even further. He even embraces it as a core tenet of his campaign: “We never win anymore. We’re going to win so much, you’ll be tired of all the winning.” He’s talking about America, but many Trump supporters, those Republicans who have been with him since the beginning, see it as commentary on a party and a movement which never seems to notch any victories which seem to last—from the Presidency, to policy debates in Congress, to the Supreme Court and the culture wars.

So they give a little with Trump. Maybe he’s not a conservative, but he makes deals. He’ll help us win. The first step is always the most important; after that it becomes easier. Maybe we should stop talking about social issues so much. Maybe we should abandon free trade. And when they give up more of their principles for Trump, and he responds with a deal with Democrats that gives away even more, Trump’s supporters will say, “He just needs to do this to win reelection. He has to win reelection.”

The ideal of principle is superseded by the ideal of winning. And soon, winning shifts from being a means to an end to the end itself. Winning becomes its own good.

Why We Talk So Much About Trump: It's Personal

Over the weekend, Kimberly Ross, writing at RedState, posted an excellent piece asking, “Why Do We Talk So Much About Trump?” I agree completely with all of her arguments, but I think there’s an even deeper reason for why many conservative members of #NeverTrump are so obsessed (for lack of a better word) with The Donald—it’s personal.

Hillary Clinton is a terrible, awful, no good, very bad candidate, and would be the same as President—but she’s a liberal Democrat who is running as the candidate of the Democratic Party. Trump, meanwhile, is a liberal who has taken over the Republican Party, making many of its leaders and members look like fools and hacks in the process. Based on past statements and evidence, he would pursue many of the same liberal policies as Clinton, but with the added detriment of giving them an air of conservative approval. I’ve written before about how Trump can be liberal, and yet give conservatism a bad name at the same time—it’s all about perception, and merely being the nominee of what was once America’s major conservative party will be enough for many voters to see Donald Trump as emblematic of conservatism.

The point is that Hillary Clinton is the terrible candidate of the other side, the sort of person Democrats nominate all the time. But, for many Republicans, it feels as if Trump and his followers stole the party out from under them, all while destroying some of the party’s brightest stars in the process. The fact that many of Trump’s primary wins were the result of Democrats and independents voting in Republican open primaries makes that perception even stronger.

This was our party, many conservatives think. And now this orange freak and his cultists have stolen it. For many who had (and still have) an emotional attachment to the Party of Reagan, that anger is hard to let go of, and is the reason many still can’t stop talking about (or raging about) Trump.

Expectations for the Vice-Presidential Debate

Tonight, Mike Pence and Tim Kaine will face off for their only debate of the general election. Historically, and for obvious reasons, the VP debates have earned fewer headlines and lower ratings than the main presidential debates, and this year the same should be doubly true. With such big names as Trump and Clinton choosing such low-key and, frankly, boring running mates, tonight’s debate will feel almost likely a disappointment sandwiched between the main events.

Still, the debate will be important in other ways. The Vice President has two constitutional duties—presiding over the Senate (which usually only entails voting to break a tie) and being prepared to take over the country upon the death, resignation, or impairment of the President. Compared to Clinton and Trump, who are known commodities to even the most low-information of low-information voters, Pence and Kaine might as well be “stereotypical Midwestern politician” and “that guy with the eyebrow”. Voters will need to know both of them can handle the Presidency, during what would undoubtedly be a turbulent time for the nation (even more so than it is now).

Neither Pence nor Kaine should have any problem doing that. Both are experienced politicians with executive experience who have been preparing for this moment for weeks. Elaine Quijano will likely throw out several Trump and Clinton-specific questions, asking Pence and Kaine to defend various remarks and explain various scandals, but the focus of the debate should be on the two men actually on stage.

For it to be a successful debate, she will need to get the candidates to prove that they are prepared to be President, and discuss what other roles, formal or informal, they would have in a Trump or Clinton administration. Save the questions on Trump University or the Clinton Foundation for Sunday night.

A Warning To The Reluctant Trump Voter

As we reach the home stretch of the campaign, the inevitable is happening. Many Republicans and independents are beginning to forget some of the objections they had to Trump, some of the reasons they had earlier declared themselves to be #NeverTrump. The specter of a Hillary Clinton presidency has caused them to reconsider, to decide that Donald Trump is the only vehicle left to stop a second Clinton presidency. The “lesser of two evils” argument is beginning to gain greater traction.

Enough people have already stripped away the arguments for the “lesser of two evils”. Either option entails voting for evil. But there is another simple fact that all those who vote for Trump, however reluctantly, must be reminded of: To vote for a candidate means to become responsible for everything that candidate says or does. The same is doubly true for Donald Trump.

If Trump wins the Presidency, everyone who voted for him and promoted him must answer for every action, objectionable comment, and liberal policy he makes or promotes over the next four years. They will bear responsibility for elevating to the most powerful office in the world a man who insults women, ridicules and threatens everyone who dares disagree with him, and believes that Planned Parenthood does “wonderful things”. They will own it all.

Just as every person who voted for Barack Obama in 2008 bears some measure of responsibility for Obamacare, Dodd-Frank, and his two Supreme Court appointments, so too will every person who supports a victorious Trump campaign in 2016 be in some way responsible for his every action while in office. If not for millions of people who consider themselves reluctant Trump voters, Donald J. Trump will not be President come January 2017.

This is not to say I don’t understand their reasoning in supporting Trump over Clinton. I do. Hillary Clinton would be an atrocious Commander in Chief. But just as her supporters must answer for everything that may come of a second Clinton Presidency, so too must Trump supporters answer for anything that might emerge from a Trump administration. Both policy papers and Tweets.

Elections have consequences. Trump voters, be certain you are prepared to defend your man, his actions, and yours.