Talk:List of Republicans who opposed the Donald Trump 2016 presidential campaign

Republican endorsements on Clinton page

I've noticed a few Republican members on the Clinton endorsements page are not listed here. I don't have time at the moment to look for all of them, but there are at least four off the top of my head. Those and I who have edited that page have been adamant about putting a "Republican" after their name, so they should be easy to find. List of Hillary Clinton presidential campaign endorsements, 2016 -- MrVenaCava (talk) 03:37, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Misleading Article

This article is very misleading. In some cases, the figures listed have indicated that they don't plan to endorse Trump; in others, they have indicated that they won't vote for Trump; in others, they have indicated that they will be voting for Clinton. Those are 3 very different positions, and the article makes no distinction between them.

Also, I wouldn't characterize a non-endorsement as opposition.CFredkin (talk) 23:51, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

I think it's about as misleading as most endorsement articles regarding the first two positions. The third position is clearly marked in parenthesis: "(endorsed [somebody other than Trump])". I'm not sure what qualifies as "opposition", though you could propose an alternate title. ^Falling_Gravity 01:08, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your argument.... If it's an endorsement article, and there's a source stating that someone endorses the candidate, then I think you can reasonably say that person endorses the candidate in article. However, if it's an opposition article, and there's a source stating that someone will not endorse the candidate, then I don't believe you can characterize that (by itself) as opposition. It might be characterized as neutrality. I also don't know what you mean when you say that the third position above is noted by parentheses.CFredkin (talk) 03:30, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

If you are Republican and you aren’t voting for Trump in the general election, whether you are not voting at all or are voting for Clinton or Johnson or someone else, then you are opposed to Trump and belong here. We usually know this because of a loud refusal to endorse Trump or an endorsement of another candidate. But if you are trying to have it both ways and you aren’t endorsing him but say you are voting for him anyway, like Kelly Ayotte and a number of others, then you are not opposed and don’t belong here. If you find someone on this list who doesn’t fall in the former catalog, please advise with documentation. Thanks. Andy Anderson 03:52, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Where does your definition come from? Because I read the sources for the former president Bush's, Kissinger, and Schultz and they don't read like opposition to me.CFredkin (talk) 04:02, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

You’re right, they don’t. I’ve removed them. Thanks, Andy Anderson 04:20, 7 September 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndyAnderson (talk • contribs)

Thanks. Also Pressler is an Independent and Weld is Libertarian. I don't believe they belong here either.CFredkin (talk) 04:24, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Weld I will defend — he’s been a life-long Republican, only running now as a Libertarian because of Trump. He previously supported Kasich. Andy Anderson 04:30, 7 September 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndyAnderson (talk • contribs)

Pressler I’ve removed, as you note he’s been an independent since 2013. --Andy Anderson 04:34, 7 September 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndyAnderson (talk • contribs)

I will also defend Weld's inclusion as he fits under the category of Republicans who left the party during the 2016 presidential election.Kjack1071 (talk) 03:00, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Yost Now for Trump

Dave Yost was just removed from this page, first without explanation, which was reverted, and then again with the above explanation. It would be nice if deletions also included a reference, but in any case, here’s one so we don’t keep going back and forth: [1] — Andy Anderson 14:03, 13 September 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndyAnderson (talk • contribs)

Should Gary Johnson be listed among former Republican governors?

It seems to me that if former GOP governor William Weld is listed for being on the Libertarian ticket, then former GOP governor Gary Johnson should be treated no differently. bd2412 T 15:35, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

• No, there is a big difference, which is that Johnson has been actively Libertarian since late 2011 when he ran for their 2012 presidential nomination. Weld was a Republican until this year, publicly supporting John Kasich. Weld jumped ship only after Trump’s nomination was inevitable. — Andy Anderson 15:45, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

• Yes, of course Johnson should be included. The criteria for this page is: individuals who currently hold or formerly held office as a Republican and also opposed Donald Trump's 2016 campaign. Gary Johnson fits both of those criteria and should be listed. 24.217.204.49 (talk) 18:30, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Do Obama Republicans really belong?

Specifically thinking of Andrew Sullivan who hasn't endorsed a Republican Presidential candidate since 2000 by the look of it. (Orson Scott Card and R. James Woolsey Jr. were on Democratic and liberal support for John McCain in 2008, but I don't know that I'd add them to List of Democrats opposing Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016.)--T. Anthony (talk) 09:18, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

• Yes, that’s a good question, see Andrew_Sullivan#Politics for his evolving political support. Probably best to remove him, this page is about consistent Republicans and their supporters who now have issues with their nominee. I will do so. — Andy Anderson 13:36, 8 October 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndyAnderson (talk • contribs)

October 7

For Historical purposes, it seems appropriate to divide this based on what happened before and after the comments on October 7. Theoallen1 (talk) 16:08, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

• This should be divided because of the vast number of people who have renounced Trump today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theoallen1 (talk • contribs) 18:29, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

• I don't think the list should be divided, but I do think it would be good to include the date the individuals announced their opposition, as this would indicate a more complete campaign-wide context. The same goes for the various endorsement pages, I suppose. I would support expanding the lead so that it is more more article-like and includes trends, such as the October 7 news and reactions. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 21:53, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

• I don’t think the list should be divided. This event is one in many, just because people are paying attention now doesn't mean the situation is significantly different. Not a bad idea to include some of the controversies in the opening, but there is probably another page dedicated to this already, just as there is for the “Stop Trump Movement” that gave rise to this page. — Andy Anderson 22:12, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

• I would note, however, what has happened since October 7 'is significant. The reason is that for current Governors, Senators, and Representatives, they are being judged by electors solely based on support of Trump.

— 9 current Governors (was 4) — 17 current Senators (was 5) — 30 current Representatives (was 10) Theoallen1 (talk) 14:40, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Shelley Capito

This person was added to the list:

Shelley Moore Capito, West Virginia (2015–present) (withdrew endorsement)

with the reference

@frankthorp (October 8, 2016). "WV GOP @SenCapito: Trump should "reexamine his candidacy" ==>" (Tweet) – via Twitter.

The reference is incorrect, she did *not* say that ”Trump should ’reexamine his candidacy’”. She said ”the appropriate next step may be for him to reexamine his candidacy”. This is not in any way a definite sign of opposition to Trump like the many others that have appeared here, it is essentially a criticism like many others we’ve seen in the past and haven’t led to their inclusion here.

I removed her and provided this justification, the removal was reverted without explanation — so please justify that, Zlassiter. — Andy Anderson 22:29, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

• Your repeated blanking and vandalism without consensus is disturbing. Zlassiter (talk) 22:30, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Zlassiter I provided justification. You provided none for your reversals. We can’t reach a consensus if you don’t explain yourself. And I’ve now provided this section which actually you should have provided since you disagree with my justification. But you still haven’t provided a justification here. — Andy Anderson 22:43, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
    • telling someone to reexamine their candidacy for president is pretty clear. Several reputable news sites are listing her as opposition. Reversals don't need justification, blanking does. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zlassiter (talk • contribs) 22:50, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
      • She didn’t tell him to reexamine his candidacy, she said it may be time for him to do so. Very mild. And “reputable news sites” are secondary sources if they aren’t quoting her directly. We are looking at her exact words and can make our own judgement. — Andy Anderson 23:18, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
      • By the way, if by “blanking” you mean I removed her with a new edit, this was definitely not vandalism — the revision is here: [2] and you will see that it included two other additions that I did not want to affect. So a direct edit seemed the responsible thing to do. — Andy Anderson 23:18, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Traditionally Republican papers

Should there be a link to the Newspaper endorsements in the United States presidential election, 2016 to look at all the Republican-leaning papers declining to support Trump? Therequiembellishere (talk) 23:29, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

• Yes, please, in the Reference section! — Andy Anderson 23:33, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
• Yes. In addition, there should also be some statement in both linked articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theoallen1 (talk • contribs) 06:25, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
• Yes. Zlassiter (talk) 06:41, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
• The deletion of the Newspapers and other Media section last night was deemed vandalism by myself.Theoallen1 (talk) 13:17, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Withdrawing Endorsement vs. Calling for Withdrawing Candidacy

In the edit [3] Therequiembellishere says “[Calling for Withdrawing Candidacy] effective equates to a withdrawal of his endorsement”. I would argue that it does not equate, rather “Calling for Withdrawing Candidacy” is a stronger statement than simply “Withdrawing Endorsement”, it includes the latter but goes much farther in its effect. If the person listed in fact said the former, we should use that statement rather than changing it to the latter. — Andy Anderson 02:05, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

• I would disagree. There are a few different statements and each havs different meanings. "Withdrew endorsement" means that they previously endorsed the candidate and the standard should be whether there is a retraction on the other page. "Calling for Trump to withdraw" is an explicitly request for him to withdraw. "Endorsing ___" means the person is endorsing that candidate for President (i.e. Hillary Clinton, Gary Johnson, or Evan McMullin) "Writing-in ___" means the person is writing in a candidate. [For Governor Pence, the term "writing-in" is used regardless] I would prefer that if we knew that they would not support Hillary Clinton, and have not announced how they are voting for President, we say ("Not supporting Hillary Clinton"). They are not interchangeable — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theoallen1 (talk • contribs) 06:16, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Structure

Would anyone mind if I adjust the heading structure to match that of List of Donald Trump presidential campaign endorsements, 2016? Parallel articles should have parallel structures, I think. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 05:17, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

• I don’t see the need. It will just make it harder to keep up with the changes. — Andy Anderson 05:43, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
  • In what way? I think the heading structure at the other article makes more intuitive sense, since it separates offices by level (federal, military, state, etc.) and a parallel structure would make it easier to add new categories as needed. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 06:00, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
  • I would prefer parallel changes, but Current Members of Congress should be listed first in both articles. Theoallen1 (talk) 06:07, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
• I like this idea... however I think it should be revisited at a later time assuming the flood of republican's opposing trump continues over the next few days making a substantial change to the structure of this document will make it difficult to keep up with. Zlassiter (talk) 06:40, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Early voting has already began. This should be done as soon as possible. In addition, we should prioritize members of Congress. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theoallen1 (talk • contribs) 06:51, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
    • I disagree with prioritizing members of congress in the order of the structure. It should be done by importance of public office held for public officials... Former Presidents should top the list as an example, not members of congress — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zlassiter (talk • contribs) 07:13, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
    • Yes, absolutely, order of importance should be the priority. In any case, I think grouping by endorsements is not appropriate here, public officials vs. other notable individuals is much better. — Andy Anderson 14:53, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
    • My proposal would be as follows (this applies to this article and the article "List of Donald Trump presidential campaign endorsements, 2016". I would use the Campaign endorsement article, with these changes. First, at the top should be Former Presidents and Vice Presidents, Republican Nominees who were unsuccessful, and candidates in the primary (who may have broke their pledge). Second comes incumbent members of Congress. Third comes governors and former governors. Fourth comes former members of Congress. Fifth comes other current and former elected officials; judges should be listed last. Sixth comes appointed officials. Seventh comes leaders of the RNC, delegates to the convention in Cleveland, and party leaders. Eighth comes other political parties in the United States. Ninth comes foriegn office holders. Candidates seeking higher office in the general election should be noted as nominee for ___. And Judicial Officers should be listed last in each category.Theoallen1 (talk) 16:29, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
      • If we're going to do parallel structure, let's do parallel structure. If you don't like the order of the Trump endorsement page, propose the changes there and we'll mirror them here. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 07:19, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Notability for Trump Surrogates

I would disagree with calling anyone who was on a Trump advisory committee appointed by Trump who renounces him inappropriate to exclude. Being a Trump qualifies.Theoallen1 (talk) 17:25, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, former senior trump staff and people on national campaign advisory committees should be included. I've once again undone the vandalism by a certain editor blanking this section over and over. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zlassiter (talk • contribs) 05:12, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

If they are important enough to include here, they are important enough to have their own page on Wikipedia, and in the latter case they are a good addition. — Andy Anderson 17:37, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Quit doing unilateral section blanking AndyAnderson (talk · contribs). If you disagree with content discuss it here to reach consensus. Zlassiter (talk) 05:34, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

I am only removing sections that have no individuals listed. — Andy Anderson 05:41, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

If they were a Trump advisor, they are important enough to be included. If there notability is due solely due to the renounce ment, this is not automatically qualifing. We can create a page later.Theoallen1 (talk) 17:44, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Create the page first. — Andy Anderson 18:12, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

hey, weve tried doing that you just delete the page. So its clear your not editing from a NPOV Zlassiter (talk) 05:08, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

You created the page when it had nothing but a stub tag, which is when I put it up for CSD. It'd be better if you had drafted it first. Booyahhayoob (talk) 17:41, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

I’ve never deleted any such page. Never saw that any such page existed, and I did look first. — Andy Anderson 05:22, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

This is somewhat ridiculous. These are low-to-mid-level campaign staff who don't meet a shred of the notability criteria for their own pages beyond this one event, and inclusion is not a two-way street. They have to be notable in their own right. They aren't. When high-level staff (Kushner, Manafort, Lewandowski, Conaway's "unless...") and/or surrogates (Giulliani, Huckabee, Priebus, Pence, Hastert) disavow him, we'll have to negotiate where they go. But not if they should be here, because these figures obviously would be. Therequiembellishere (talk) 05:47, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for joining the discussion... Chougule wasn't lower level staff, he was the policy coordinator for the trump campaign. Thats the title of the person who coordinates development of policy for the campaign. Zlassiter (talk) 05:51, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

It's mid-rank. And until they have an article that can pass notability on their own (which Chougule didn't), they won't be put on this page. They don't get put on this page and then get an article. Wikipedia:Write the article first Therequiembellishere (talk) 06:12, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

This page is a discussion on if people should be included by consensus, Therequiembellishere.

You don't get to dictate who gets included by saying "They Don't get put on this page", those decisions are made by consensus not unilateral revisions. Zlassiter (talk) 06:42, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

This page has an existing policy, how many times do we have to tell you that? You are the one unilaterally violating the existing policy. You can argue for a change in the policy or an exception in this case, but you must wait for a decision. I oppose both, by the way; I want the sailors here, not the rats. — Andy Anderson 06:59, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Therequiembellishere, a department head in a campaign isnt mid rank. Department heads are considered senior staff in a campaign, the current policy director being listed as management on the donald trump campaign ballotpedia page. Zlassiter (talk) 06:45, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Did you read through to the end of that sentence? And a branch manager is management, but middle-management. Therequiembellishere (talk) 06:54, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Therequiembellishere (talk · contribs)This isn't a branch manager, the individual worked in the national campaign office as a department director, not a state or local level campaign office. Also you need to start AGF, asking questions like "did you read through to the end of that" are hostile and don't serve to help reach consensus Zlassiter (talk) 07:12, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

You didn't read to the end and petulantly declared "I don't get to dictate" based on not reading until the end of that sentence, which invalidates your own attack. Throwing a fit and prematurely launching a DSN while throwing around policies you don't fully understand to support it isn't helpful at reaching consensus.

Also, you do know that Chougule wasn't the policy director, right? He was the coordinator. Which is the very definition of middle management. You talk about Ballotpedia, but if you actually look at the page, you'll see his position is not considered senior staff and doesn't even register on their staff changes page. Therequiembellishere (talk) 07:32, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

This should be allowed, but the positions that my proposal could be narrowed to only apply to someone on the Trump Hispanic National Advisory Counsel is the sort of position that I am referring to.Theoallen1 (talk) 17:20, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

I was asked by Andy A to give my thoughts on this subject (probably because of past edits), so I'll go ahead and give my primary view: anybody who fails WP:BLP1E doesn't deserve a spot on this page. Period. If they were previously notable before denouncing him (and not just for being a part of his campaign), that I can understand. But when you create a page for somebody solely for including them on this page, it should be pretty clear they don't deserve a spot on the list. Booyahhayoob (talk) 17:41, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Interesting reading

Interesting reading at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Republicans opposing Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016.

Great to see Wikipedia grappling with these issues.

69.50.70.9 (talk) 21:48, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Removal

I have been removing people from this list who have been announcing that they will vote for Donald Trump, notwithstanding the refusal to endorse Trump. Although support does not equal endorsement, the re-announcing of voting for Donald Trump means a candidate cannot oppose them and should be excluded from this list.Theoallen1 (talk) 02:51, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

I removed Stein as he did, somewhat ambivalently perhaps, support Trump at the end.[4]--T. Anthony (talk) 23:18, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Questionable

Just found this article for the first time. I see there has been lots of discussion but just offering another comment.

Though personally I find the list interesting and amusing, it is not all encyclopedic. As others have observed, the definition used to create the list is very broad and nebulous. The implication of this list is that all these people were one united front which is not at all true. The people on this list represent a very wide range of viewpoints regarding Trump. I would say that for this list to be at all meaningful the definition needs to be much more specific and ideally be restricted to people who meaningfully and actively opposed Trump (as opposed to people who perhaps just stated at some point that they were not voting for him and did not say much else).

Again, it is interesting to see a list of every major Republican who ever said they wouldn't vote for him but I would say that is more "fun" than "encylopedic".

-- MC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.131.2.3 (talk) 21:21, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Count of anti-DT Republicans

It would be nice if there was a total count of anti-DT Republicans in the first paragraph, along with a mention that these are ones that were made public, and there may be dozens others. It may also be educational to note that, by comparison, the number of Democratic personalities who publicly came out against Hillary Clinton, much less said they would vote for DT, are few and far between. Skaizun (talk) 21:58, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:List of Republicans who oppose the 2020 Donald Trump presidential campaign which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 10:37, 4 October 2020 (UTC)