Hacker News Reader

His intentions don't necessarily have to be short term. If he performs well in this election, that could be a solid launch for another kind of candidacy (senator, governor, secretary of something, party leadership, etc.)

That's true. Normally one would ask which party he's trying to endear himself to with a third-party run (usually a big no-no), but it's pretty obvious that there's a large percentage of mainstream Republicans who'd prefer an HRC win to a Trump win (probably because a Trump win would solidify the new direction of the party in a way those people are not happy about). McMullin's role in denying the Trump win, which may actually end up being significant if states in the Mormon Corridor (including AZ) go blue, would bode well for his career as a Republican in future elections (as long as Trump loses).

Well, imagine he wins Utah, and his electoral college votes are what Hillary or Trump need to become president: the guy could negotiate anything with either. Secretary of State? You got it.

No, this is the exact scenario described in the main article. If McMullin wins Utah and the EC is split, then the decision goes to the House. Any negotiation being done will happen there and will hinge on the Senate's decision for the VP.

He can negotiate before the EC meets. There is no obligation for his electors to vote for him.

Some states have unfaithful elector laws, which punish EC members who vote against the winner of the state's popular vote. According to random site from Google [0], Utah is one of those states. Not sure what the punishment would be.

[0] http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/the-ele...

You are right. "In Utah, a candidate who fails to vote as required is considered to have resigned, and a replacement is appointed."

Wikipedia does not show Utah as having laws against faithless electors.

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

I think your concerns about his previous professions are based on Hollywood stereotypes rather than reality, to be frank.

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 think your concerns about his previous professions are based on Hollywood stereotypes rather than reality, to be frank.

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?

Is there not some "white horse prophecy" where a Mormon will save the Constitution in its moment of danger?

Not really. While this is widely believed, it's apocryphal. [0]

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...

https://bycommonconsent.com/2016/06/05/dear-mormon-voters-of...

I abandoned the LDS blogosphere (the "bloggernacle", if they still call it that) many years ago. This article would be salient and useful if it stuck to its initial point rather than going on to advocate explicitly for HRC. That should've been a separate article.

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.

Even if there is why fixate on this moment?

As a Utah resident, I'm hearing a lukewarm responses from my Davis county friends. Oddly, many of my Evangelical friends in Florida are on fire to vote for this guy. Perhaps it's because, as you say, he's using key Mormon phrases and they're just not picking up on those. (Mormons and Evangelicals often use the same words, with different meanings)

"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."

. . . and if Romney were not Mormon, he'd be running as incumbent this year.

I don't think that's true. It's very difficult to unseat an incumbent and generally only occurs under anomalous conditions. As much as evangelicals may not like the idea of a Mormon candidate (which is why McCain beat Romney in '08, btw), I think they were a lot more comfortable with a Mormon like Romney than a secularist like Trump.

> 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.

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...

> 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?

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.

But if it gets sent to the House, he won't be elected there. So the end goal is to send the vote to the House? What's the point of that? The sentiment that the American people were robbed was palpable in Bush v. Gore. How much worse will it be, whatever the outcome is, if the election goes to the House? The House putting in McMullin is so unlikely that I want to say it's impossible; even if most Reps wanted to, they'd be making their constituents extremely angry (except for those reps from Utah) and wouldn't survive re-election, if they even made it that far. It would be a crisis for our democracy and my belief is that there would be at least small amounts of bloodshed.

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?

The article explains how a Republican House, many of whose members despise Trump but don't want to piss off pro-Trump voters in their districts in a pre-election context, might switch their allegiance to Evan in a post-election context.

> I think your concerns about his previous professions are based on Hollywood stereotypes rather than reality, to be frank.

But you just compared him to a Hollywood stereotype. Which is it? Is he Jack Bauer or Peter Priesthood?

So where does Chuck Norris fit in the continuum?

I didn't compare him to a Hollywood stereotype, I said that the job he did at CIA is as close to Jack Bauer as exists in reality.

He's a pretty strong advocate of getting independent candidates national ballot access. Winning a state and causing turmoil (even if he isn't the ultimate winner) would be a great first step towards breaking the two party vicegrip.

People say this, but we had a similar situation as recently as Perot and it didn't change anything (though admittedly, Perot did not win a majority in any state).

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.

It's definitely an uphill battle. Also, it remains to be seen if Trumpism requires Trump himself to remain viable or not (I'm skeptical, but I was skeptical of essentially everything about his candidacy's viability, so what do I know?). If it turns out that Trumpism was more about him than his actual ideas, then McMullin will be less impactful. He's really a fairly generic Utah Republican, so if Trumpism fades, his success will just be pointed to as evidence that the GOP still works. Gary Johnson taking a state would be more impactful, as he'd have operated outside of the two major parties for multiple election cycles (I do not find this likely at all).

538 on the ross perot myth, should give it a watch

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.

I'm highly skeptical of the claim there would be "armed resistance" to the House choosing McMullin to be president.