#NeverTrump Has a Hail Mary Plan to Block Trump

Conservatives opposed to Donald Trump might not be able to stop him from getting the GOP nomination, but they’re mulling backup options.

Jim Urquhart/Reuters/ZUMA

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


As Donald Trump’s path to the Republican presidential nomination seems increasingly inevitable, his conservative opponents in the #NeverTrump movement have begun to hatch radical backup plans to deny him the presidency without putting a Democrat in the White House. One Hail Mary strategy they’ve discussed involves recruiting prominent third-party candidates to run in individual states where they’re popular in order to bolster down-ballot Republicans and possibly even throw the presidential race to the House of Representatives.

After Trump won last week’s Indiana primary and his remaining rivals dropped out of the race, Republicans still refusing to support him sought an alternative strategy to beating him at the polls or the Republican National Convention in July. Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol has been trying to woo Mitt Romney to run as a third-party candidate—or if not Romney, pretty much any other mainstream Republican willing to mount a national campaign.

Republican strategist Liz Mair, who has become one of the public faces of the anti-Trump crowd, tells Mother Jones that she’s been having conversations with other leading conservatives opposed to Trump about a variety of backup options since Trump’s last remaining rivals, Ted Cruz and John Kasich, dropped out of the race last week. One option, should they fail to recruit a viable candidate to run nationwide, is to get conservative candidates to run independent, single-state bids in as many states as possible.

Mair declined to specify which anti-Trump conservatives were most inclined toward this plan, but she mentioned several potential candidates. While Romney seems unlikely to launch a nationwide presidential bid, perhaps conservatives could convince him to put his name on the ballot in Utah, where he’s popular due to his family roots there and his Mormon faith. Or Scott Walker could run just in Wisconsin, Mair suggests, or Rick Perry in Texas (although Perry endorsed Trump last week). Even non-politicians, she believes, would be better than Trump. “If we’re going to be in the era of celebrities, we could get Clint Eastwood or Kurt Russell,” Mair says.

If these one-off candidates could pick off a few key swing states, that might be enough to deny both Trump and the Democratic candidate (likely Hillary Clinton) an Electoral College majority. In that case, the president would be selected by the Republican-controlled House of Representatives, which presumably would be more inclined to hand the job to a traditional Republican than face four years of working with Trump.

The odds are not in favor of that outcome—not to mention the popular upheaval that might follow if this kind of scenario came to pass. But the strategy could accomplish a more modest goal. A popular name at the top of the ballot in certain states could give anti-Trump Republicans who were thinking of sitting out the election a reason to go to the polls and vote for other Republicans on the ballot. “The main logic behind that, from what I can glean,” Mair says, “is that people are really worried about down-ballot in that situation.”

It might sound like a long-shot strategy and a thankless task for the candidates who would volunteer to run for president with next to no chance of actually entering the White House. But Mair—who said her initial reaction to conservatives pushing an independent candidate was that “they were fucking nuts”—has become increasingly convinced that it might be a plausible way to help keep Trump from dragging down Republican candidates for other offices in November. “I do think that option overall is a lot more viable than people are giving it credit for,” she says.

Mair mentioned this strategy among a long list of possible routes that the diaspora of disaffected Republicans has been discussing as alternatives to backing Trump. She’s still not sure what approach she would prefer, and she even pondered whether she’d write herself in on the presidential line come November. One more plausible option is uniting behind former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson if he ends up winning the Libertarian Party nomination, as he did in 2012. “He could run a substantially stronger campaign than he did last time,” Mair says. He’s not the ideal candidate, but his economically conservative record as governor could pull away some traditional Republicans. “My priority is much more voting and keeping my conscience clear,” says Mair.

Trump’s conservative opponents aren’t quite ready to concede that he’s got the nomination locked up, and they’re holding out hope—at least publicly—that there’s a path to derailing him at the convention. “I think people recognize that it’s going to take something extraordinary and out of kilter with what we normally do in politics,” Mair says. She wouldn’t name names but said there were a host of Republicans with “clout” planning to work behind the scenes to sway delegates between now and July. The hope is that there are enough Cruz delegates who would be willing to do anything to muck up the rules in order to block Trump in Cleveland. “There’s probably nobody in the world who hates Donald Trump more than the world of Ted Cruz supporters,” Mair says.

Our Principles PAC, the most active Trump opposition group, has spent $17 million opposing Trump thanks largely to a large donation from Marlene Ricketts, whose family owns the Chicago Cubs. The group is refusing to admit defeat just yet. Its founder, former Romney deputy campaign manager Katie Packer, pushed back vigorously last week when ABC reported that Our Principles PAC would be shutting down.

“We are looking at various options as to how we could impact the race going forward and haven’t come to any decisions,” Tim Miller, a senior adviser to the group, said in an email late last week. “Until Trump has 1237 [delegates, we] will still oppose his nomination, TBD how we operationalize after.”

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate