I love Utah politics

[falafel]

Maybe this isn't the right thread for this...

Yesterday afternoon I had a chat with the VP for the Utah United political party. He was hardcore GOP in the past - precinct chair, etc., and decided he had to get out when Trump was elected. He had a really hard time watching the GOP embrace a lot of what Trump was selling and not calling him out on his frequent stupidity - his words. He invited me to jump on their official caucus last night - all online - so I figured I'd listen in while watching BYU on TV.

They're planning to endorse Evan McMullin running as an independent against Mike Lee - which is interesting. They've also got Jay McFarland running against Chris Stewart. On top of those two, they've also got several candidates for the Utah legislature.

I'm not sure what to make of McMullin, to be honest. But I do like Jay McFarland, and frequently found myself agreeing with him on his takes when he was on KSL replacing Doug Wright. I'm not sure how he gave up that gig - he was probably set until retirement if he wanted it.

One of their selling points, interestingly enough, was that a senator/representative not affiliated with either major party is a huge power broker in DC. They pointed to Romney, Manchin, and Sinema as examples of people that both sides were working with and negotiating with precisely because they couldn't count on them to just vote the party line. Someone asked them the question who they would caucus with, and the response was "whoever invites us" - though it was a little awkward as they acknowledged that at least initially they wouldn't fit in anywhere and may not participate in any committees, etc.

Jay pushed the narrative that right now the GOP and Dems are both set on division and steamrolling the other side. Neither is interested in compromise or working together to find consensus. And pushed his belief that it is better for the county as a whole when both sides come together, work to understand each other, and find common ground. Sounded way too logical and grounded to get much traction - because he's right, most involved in politics are more concerned about winning and pushing their agenda on everyone than on actually governing in a way that represents the interests of everyone.

It will be interesting to see if they get much traction over time.

Interesting timing for this post, as I just read this OpEd in the the Washington Post. The author agrees with some of what you say about McMullin (and uses that as an argument for why Mitt should endorse Lee).

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...yal-his-party/

Romney’s reticence raises the question of whether he plans to support the Republican Conference’s choice for leader after the election. Fellow moderate Sens. Joe Manchin III (D-W.Va.) and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) recently crossed party lines to endorse each other’s reelections. Manchin also endorsed Republican Sen. Susan Collins’s 2020 reelection bid. If McMullin were to win, he and Romney could theoretically join those moderates to form a bloc of five who could determine control of the Senate. That may be far-fetched, but such cross-partisan arrangements are not uncommon in state legislatures.

[BigFatMeanie]

I'm a UUP member but I didn't attend the "virtual caucus" last night because I attended the in-person caucus a few weeks ago.

[myboynoah]

Interesting. Seems like the best way to unseat that lying dirtbag. Can it work?

Embedded Tweet

I wonder what Mitt will do.

[BigFatMeanie]

United Utah Party is endorsing McMullin as well.

[Jeff Lebowski]

United Utah Party is endorsing McMullin as well.

Those 17 votes just might push EM to victory.

[BigFatMeanie]

Those 17 votes just might push EM to victory.

[MartyFunkhouser]

Interesting. Seems like the best way to unseat that lying dirtbag. Can it work?

Embedded Tweet

I wonder what Mitt will do.

It is the right call. If Mitt continues his path as a principled politician, I think he will back McMullen.

It doesn't matter though. Lee will get a minimum of 60% of the vote. He is there until he chooses to leave

[Copelius]

I read McMullin's website about his priorities and principles and found none. He seems as a person who is not committed to any position other than "Mike Lee bad." We are currently dealing with the results of an election based solely on "Orange Man bad." His policy statements are just broad platitudes. I want to know what specific actions politicians intend to propose, understanding that he would be one of a hundred, but at least give me something more than the same milquetoast platitudes from every other politician.

Now don't get me wrong, I will not vote for Mike in the primary because he ran, in part on the premise that two terms should be enough. He is now saying that he only supports term limits if it applies to everyone. Wrong answer. If you do not have the integrity to impose term limits upon yourself just because nobody else is doing it, you are just like all the other politicians. I don't personally believe in term limits for any office, because that is what voters are for. But if you are going to campaign on it, then keep that promise too. It is kind of ironic (can I get a ruling) that one of Mike's biggest pitches to the public is someone who doesn't trade principles for a convenient solution. He sure seemed pretty principled in 2010 when railing on Bennett trying for a 4th term. I guess it is a minor principle.

But other than that quibble with his integrity, I don't consider McMullin to be a viable alternative. The abovementioned generalities of his prioities and principles allow him to take whatever stand on any particular issue in the senate that will give his 1% vote greater weight, thus giving him more influence for both during and after his senate career. My message to Utah Republicans who are supporting McMullin instead of one of the other Republicans on the primary is of Lee is that bad then we have the primary option. If Lee wins the primary, the only difference between McMullin and Weston would be that Lee would win in November by 54% with McMullin and 67% with Weston.

[USUC]

Why is it so easy for opponents of GOP populists to so thoroughly back the most unappealing candidates? The Utah Dem party is an unserious and embarrassing organization. Regardless of what you think of McMullen personally, what does he offer the GOP base in Utah to pry them away from Lee? Unless I see evidence to convince me otherwise, this is nothing more than the Lincon Project's wet dream.

[Copelius]

Why is it so easy for opponents of GOP populists to so thoroughly back the most unappealing candidates? The Utah Dem party is an unserious and embarrassing organization. Regardless of what you think of McMullen personally, what does he offer the GOP base in Utah to pry them away from Lee? Unless I see evidence to convince me otherwise, this is nothing more than the Lincon Project's wet dream.

Nah. McMullin is way to old to be the subject of one of their wet dreams.

[USUC]

Nah. McMullin is way to old to be the subject of one of their wet dreams.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Why is it so easy for opponents of GOP populists to so thoroughly back the most unappealing candidates? The Utah Dem party is an unserious and embarrassing organization. Regardless of what you think of McMullen personally, what does he offer the GOP base in Utah to pry them away from Lee? Unless I see evidence to convince me otherwise, this is nothing more than the Lincon Project's wet dream.

Is this a serious question?

You don't see trumpism as an existential threat to democracy?

[Jeff Lebowski]

I read McMullin's website about his priorities and principles and found none. He seems as a person who is not committed to any position other than "Mike Lee bad." We are currently dealing with the results of an election based solely on "Orange Man bad." His policy statements are just broad platitudes. I want to know what specific actions politicians intend to propose, understanding that he would be one of a hundred, but at least give me something more than the same milquetoast platitudes from every other politician.

Now don't get me wrong, I will not vote for Mike in the primary because he ran, in part on the premise that two terms should be enough. He is now saying that he only supports term limits if it applies to everyone. Wrong answer. If you do not have the integrity to impose term limits upon yourself just because nobody else is doing it, you are just like all the other politicians. I don't personally believe in term limits for any office, because that is what voters are for. But if you are going to campaign on it, then keep that promise too. It is kind of ironic (can I get a ruling) that one of Mike's biggest pitches to the public is someone who doesn't trade principles for a convenient solution. He sure seemed pretty principled in 2010 when railing on Bennett trying for a 4th term. I guess it is a minor principle.

But other than that quibble with his integrity, I don't consider McMullin to be a viable alternative. The abovementioned generalities of his prioities and principles allow him to take whatever stand on any particular issue in the senate that will give his 1% vote greater weight, thus giving him more influence for both during and after his senate career. My message to Utah Republicans who are supporting McMullin instead of one of the other Republicans on the primary is of Lee is that bad then we have the primary option. If Lee wins the primary, the only difference between McMullin and Weston would be that Lee would win in November by 54% with McMullin and 67% with Weston.

Interesting. I have been on the Mike Lee mailing list for years. Every single email is some dumbed-down culture war statement or "save us from Pelosi and the evil democrats".

Help me out here. What are the substantial differences in these two websites in terms of "specific actions"?

https://evanmcmullin.com/priorities/
https://www.lee.senate.gov/issues

And finally, Lee gets caught lying about his involvement in the run-up to the January 6th insurrection and your only "quibble with his integrity" is his broken promise on term limits?

[USUC]

Is this a serious question?

You don't see trumpism as an existential threat to democracy?

Believing McMullen is an unserious candidate means I don't see GOP populism as a threat?

[fusnik]

I read McMullin's website about his priorities and principles and found none. He seems as a person who is not committed to any position other than "Mike Lee bad." We are currently dealing with the results of an election based solely on "Orange Man bad." His policy statements are just broad platitudes. I want to know what specific actions politicians intend to propose, understanding that he would be one of a hundred, but at least give me something more than the same milquetoast platitudes from every other politician.

Now don't get me wrong, I will not vote for Mike in the primary because he ran, in part on the premise that two terms should be enough. He is now saying that he only supports term limits if it applies to everyone. Wrong answer. If you do not have the integrity to impose term limits upon yourself just because nobody else is doing it, you are just like all the other politicians. I don't personally believe in term limits for any office, because that is what voters are for. But if you are going to campaign on it, then keep that promise too. It is kind of ironic (can I get a ruling) that one of Mike's biggest pitches to the public is someone who doesn't trade principles for a convenient solution. He sure seemed pretty principled in 2010 when railing on Bennett trying for a 4th term. I guess it is a minor principle.

But other than that quibble with his integrity, I don't consider McMullin to be a viable alternative. The abovementioned generalities of his prioities and principles allow him to take whatever stand on any particular issue in the senate that will give his 1% vote greater weight, thus giving him more influence for both during and after his senate career. My message to Utah Republicans who are supporting McMullin instead of one of the other Republicans on the primary is of Lee is that bad then we have the primary option. If Lee wins the primary, the only difference between McMullin and Weston would be that Lee would win in November by 54% with McMullin and 67% with Weston.

Yikes this is such a bad take.

I forget sometimes about the craziness of the average GOP voter, thanks for the reminder.