I worked with him at Goldman. One of the smartest people I've ever met. A legit badass as well; he did a job at CIA that's as close to Jack Bauer as exists in real life.
If he actually got installed by the House, there'd be widespread unrest. We know he knows that's not a realistic option, because a) reps would never do something that would upset their constituents so seriously and b) if they did, there's a real likelihood of armed resistance. So what's the end game here? He just felt so bad that Utah may go Trump he felt he had no option but to step in and make sure that it didn't go down in history as a pro-Trump state? That's the only benefit McMullin can offer, and it's only valuable if Trump gets elected and actually turns out to be Hitler 2.0. Then Utah can have a clean nose.
In practice the only thing McMullin is doing is making a Clinton presidency more likely. Ross Perot served the same function in 1992, taking ~20% of the popular vote, probably 15% of which would've gone to Bush had Perot not been in the race.
Given McMullin's background as both a CIA operative and an international banker, I think it's fair to ask just where his intentions lie.
[0] http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/the-ele...
If you want to talk stereotypes, I'd say Evan exemplifies the positive stereotypes often associated with the LDS community -- kind, dependable, patient, hard-working, etc.
With regard to his personal motivations -- he's clearly a patriot, as his record of service as an intelligence officer more than sufficiently demonstrates. I think his motivation is largely to do something, anything, to provide an alternative to the choice between Trump and Clinton. I would likely do the same if I had the same opportunity set that he currently does.
I've known other field intel officers in real life, and while I enjoy their friendship and admire them for many things, there's no doubt that they're a little different than everyone else. That's not usually a problem in the course of everyday life, but setting oneself up as a political candidate for high office is not everyday life anymore.
While you need to be both intelligent and highly skilled to work for intel agencies, you also need to have, at best, a fluid view of personal integrity and authenticity. I don't see how this is based on "Hollywood stereotypes", since movies usually portray spies as superheroes.
>If you want to talk stereotypes, I'd say Evan exemplifies the positive stereotypes often associated with the LDS community -- kind, dependable, patient, hard-working, etc.
As a member of the LDS community you reference, he sets off my bullshit detector. He's baiting Mormons hard by using specific inside-baseball phrases. He's exploiting the opportunity created by the heavy LDS distaste for both candidates. He'll only rank significantly in states with high LDS populations (evangelicals are generally suspicious of Mormons, and more likely to be comfortable with Trump).
I'm sensitive to this kind of thing. I actually think were McMullin not Mormon, no one in Utah would be paying attention. And I don't think that's the right way to vote.
>I think his motivation is largely to do something, anything, to provide an alternative to the choice between Trump and Clinton.
Ah, but if he's as smart as you say, he knows that there is no alternative to the choice between Trump and Clinton at this point. That ship has sailed. So what's his real motive?
. . . and if Romney were not Mormon, he'd be running as incumbent this year.
As its title implies, the OP article describes how there is a small, but nonetheless real possibility that Evan could send the vote to the House. And as such, I'd reject the basic premises of this question.
We're going to give Evan the benefit of the doubt and assume that throwing American democracy into legitimate chaos (not just a sideshow, like it's already become) is not his motive. So what is his motive?
Not necessarily. Not if neither Trump nor Clinton win a majority of the electoral votes.
Now, at the moment, that looks unlikely. Trump is self-destructing so badly that Clinton will probably win a majority, with or without Utah. But if McMullin wins Utah, and Johnson wins New Mexico and maybe another state, it might be possible.
Then we'd need Congress to not just vote for Trump and Clinton. That would take more statesmanship and less partisanship than I've seen from Congress in a while.
So realistically, there's not much hope. But there's still a chance...
If we do believe the apocryphal account, there are still a couple of issues. First, it doesn't imbue a duty to vote for a Mormon guy. If the Constitution really were in maximum danger, it'd be dubious that voting in a normal election would be the mechanism used to save it.
Second, it doesn't say that a Mormon will save the Constitution by becoming president or anything like that. It says the Elders of Israel (that is, the men of the Church) will save it. That means more than voting for one guy. It probably means something more like being instrumental in a major cultural adjustment that would cause the principles in the Constitution to be valued again. This is harder than voting, so people don't prefer this interpretation.
It may not even be literal -- the Constitution could be suspended/ineffective in what we now know as the U.S., but "saved" by Mormon elders who set up a separate government that substantially respects its principles.
Whether one accepts this apocryphal prophecy or not, it does not mean Mormon candidates should be favored, and IMO, it shouldn't be a significant factor for Mormon voters.
[0] http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/blog/church-statement-on-white...
I'd love it if Mormons got a more realistic/normal perspective on the White Horse "Prophecy", as the author advocates at the beginning of the article, but I don't think saying that we have to vote for a specific candidate to invoke it (just not the candidate you would expect) really helps anything.
But you just compared him to a Hollywood stereotype. Which is it? Is he Jack Bauer or Peter Priesthood?
Perhaps now that Trump successfully "hijacked" the GOP from the establishment and Sanders gave Clinton a serious run for her money in the primary, there will be more flexibility on independent ballot access and other third-party friendly laws, since major politicians may see that as a last resort. McMullin may be a case study for them, so I can see how he'd act as supporting evidence for this type of movement, but it'd only ever be enacted out of fear that the establishment will be unable to control the party structure moving forward.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-ross-perot-myth/
basically, those who voted for perot were evenly split between both parties, so he actually didn't influence the outcome of the election through votes cast.
Did he torture people to death?
I just don't like it when people admire what was shown in this TV series. (yes, I felt it was cool back then, but I've realised sine then that this series really just indoctrinated me to accept torture)