Election 2016

Senator Ayotte Reiterates She’s Voting for Trump, Not Supporting Him. What?

Vulnerable incumbent Senator Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) spoke to CNN this morning and said she still intends to vote for Donald Trump even though she disagrees with him and won't endorse him.

I’m going to be voting for him but I do have significant disagreements with him, which I've been very clear on, so I won't be endorsing him, “ Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) told CNN’s Manu Raju in an interview published Tuesday. [...]

There’s actually a big distinction,” Ayotte said. “Because everyone gets a vote—I do too–but an endorsement is one where I’m out campaigning with someone. And so while he has my vote he doesn’t have my endorsement, and I’m going to continue to really focus on my race.”



This is what we call a distinction without a difference. By voting for someone, you have literally endorsed them.

I can't imagine average voters will see it any other way and it seems to me Ayotte's ridiculous position will only anger both Democratic and Republican voters who feel like they're being played by Ayotte.

More than perhaps anything else, voters may be turned off by the impression that she's a bullshit artist.

  • ninjaf

    Conservatives like to give President Clinton grief over “Depends on what your definition of the word ‘is” is.” I see this as just another example of their hypocrisy.

    By making it public that you will vote for him, you have endorsed him in a personal capacity. What you mean, Ms. Ayotte, is that you will not campaign for him. That is not the same.

  • Badgerite

    If you state publicly that you are voting for someone, that is an endorsement, whether you will admit to it or not. And they know it. The trump Monster is a dangerous demagogue who could not be trusted with the lunch menu, let alone the presidency, and you are stating publicly that you are voting for him. Enough said.
    Go talk to a chair. ( Do McCain and Lindsey Graham look like they are there to attend a funeral, or is that just me?)

  • vgranucci

    She’s trying to have it both ways–endorsing him without “endorsing” him.

  • David Greenberg

    Bullshit on top of bullshit from the gop. Unhinged from reality. The rank and file sense they’re being screwed but can’t give up the memes they’ve been indoctrinated with, while the establishment gop continues to screw everyone they can for the 1%.

  • Username1016

    Well, I sorta see what she means. She’s for him as an individual (her vote is an INDIVIDUAL right and an INDIVIDUAL action), but she’s not for him in her role as a senator, which presumably would include throwing the weight of her office behind him. Trouble is, she’s COMPLETELY muddied the waters by TELLING US she’s voting for him. Her stance would make more sense if she slunk into the voting booth and pulled the handle privately, while making no public announcements whatsoever. But then I guess it wouldn’t be a “stance,” would it?

    • Stance simply means attitude toward something so voting for him is a stance….but I agree with you. She should have kept her mouth shut about her individual vote if she didn’t want to “endorse” him.

  • muselet

    I kind of wish I could muster even a scintilla of sympathy for Ayotte’s plight.

    I can’t.