Are There Any GOP COngress/Senate Candidates Getting Nominated as "Trump's Guys"?

A serious question. From what I’m reading and seeing, the answer SEEMS to be “No,” but I’d like to hear about any counterexamples.

Right now, to my horror and surprise, Trump looks like the GOP nominee. My question is, does he have any coattails? Are there any self-proclaimed Trump fans winning GOP Senate and Congressional nominations around the country on an “anti-GOP establishment” platform??

In Missouri pretty much every candidate for statewide office (Republican AND Democratic) had made it clear they were running before Trump even announced last June.

I can’t say there isn’t anyone on the congressional or state legislature level who’s openly pro-Trump, but both parties seem to be more concerned with the candidates they can actually influence.

Now, I have no doubt that, come election time, the Democratic Senate candidates will do everything possible to link their opponents to Trump (they’d be foolish NOT to).

But are any Republicans seeking the Senate nominations succeeding by proclaiming, “Pick me- I’ll be The Donald’s man in Washington”?

So far, I’m not seeing it. Trump seems to be a one-man show. And even anti-establishment folks voting for Trump don’t appear to be voting against incumbent Republicans in the primaries.

Here in SW Ohio, none have come out yet and said that they are Trump’s guy, BUT they are definitely riding the “Washington outsider” and 'Successful businessman" horse pretty hard.

Pitt the Younger, son of the great Whig War-Minister, Pitt the Elder aka Lord Chatham, was of course elected as a Whig — as had been everyone in office since Bolingbroke’s days ( including Lord North, scion of rascally lawyers and big in the American War of Independence, where Lord Chatham supported the colonists ) — but whilst still adhering to the ideals of the Old Cause and the Revolution the Whigs had made, found it expedient to jettison many of the party grandees and rule above party simply as ‘Mr. Pitt’s Friends’. He never actually founded, the modern Tory party nor adhered to toryism.
Therefore future historians will assign the American period from 2016 to 2032 ( including the annexed extensions made possible by the Emergency Enabling Acts ) as the time when** Mr. Trump’s Friends** were in power; when he destroyed the old Whiggish GOP to remake the political landscape with newer parties more in tune with *What The People Want. *And after, much more straight populism to please the masses instead of the same old lies.
Hopefully there will be a cavalcade of TV personalities in office in place of the Old Gang.

Haha yeah, good luck with that.

Will Omarosa be Secretary of State?

I expect that if Trump comes to the convention with a plurality but is denied the nomination, a whole plethora of “Trumps’ Guys” will arise from the ranks of perennial independent/third party downticket candidates who usually get about three percent of the vote but will see an opportunity to exploit the resultant ragestorm to pump up their visibility and vote totals. Hell, one or two of them might get elected.

Ron Unz has announced his candidacy for a Senate seat in California. Mr. Unz is one of the very few Republican politicos whom I respect more then TRUMP (that is to say at all) and refreshingly does not bow down at the altar of the Mammon like most of America’s “conservatives”. He along with some others such as Ross Douthat, Reihan Salam, and Rod Dreher might just be the sort of people needed to make a more ideologically coherent and palatable version of Trumpism on the ruins of fusionism. Mr. Unz, for example, has supported raising the minimum wage in California to $12 to forestall demands for even higher minimum wages, to tighten labour markets and thus thus discourage illegal immigration, and (shocker!) promote the welfare of the American workingman. Similarly, his nationally conscious variant of conservatism caused him to spearhead Proposition 227 which would help quickly assimilate foreign students into wholly English-speaking classes in public schools. However, Mr. Unz is not a kneejerk nativist considering he opposed Proposition 187 which would have denied public services to illegal immigrants when the vast majority of California Republicans and even California voters generally were willing to support it. Additionally, one of his more recent causes has the potential to appeal to Asian-American voters considering he exposed the modern-day glass ceilings for students of Asian descent in the Ivy Leagues. I do sincerely wish him the best and hope he beats the usual party hacks to become one of the two remaining candidates this November.

Uh, I have respect for Unz for being against scientific racism, but he is willing to support a few nativist causes.

But what really made me think that he is losing it is when he recently declared, among his reasons to support Trump, that:

I wonder what he is smoking there. The polls have been very consistent in recent months, Hillary and many other democrats feared Cruz and Rubio more, there is caution anyhow as it looks like Trump will be candidate, but Trump was the one the Democrats preferred.

That article isn’t by Ron Unz but someone else he publishes on the site. That said, I think the situation is comparable to polls that seem to show Sanders doing better against Republicans then Clinton. Because of Trump’s ability to saturate media coverage of him and Clinton’s long presence on the national stage, people have more definitely formed opinions of them compared to Rubio, Cruz, or Sanders. The question is, how long would any of them stand up once the opposition’s attack machine goes into full gear? Rubio is Romney 2.0 in the making and Cruz’s reactionary politics is going to get him utterly shredded once the election kicks into full gear.

My mistake; however, it is clear that Unz is not making any corrections there.

Yes, but then the same can be applied to Trump, once one realizes that even the conservative media is fractured regarding Trump it points to not only the Clinton machine being there to cut Trump down to size even more but that also many conservatives will be shooting at his movement and not just Clinton.

A nit to pick, and perhaps a hijack more suited to it’s own thread, but: I don’t think Congressional candidates are nominated per-se, but rather, they are winners of a given State primary based upon a majority of the popular vote, that is un-contestable. I don’t think said Congressional candidates are subject to the same brokered convention concept as Presidential candidates are. YMMV from State to State in the U.S., I don’t know…

Please correct me if I am wrong.

To the OP’s question: I feel the Trump phenomena is such a recent development (in a political time perspective) that there has not been a sufficient lead for more local candidates to jump on the bandwagon.

Somewhat related, but I read that a Salon writer suggested that Democratic Senate candidates could use a form of this (through the Supreme Court nomination) against incumbent Republicans: “Oh, they don’t want to hold hearings on President Obama’s nomination? Then they must trust Donald Trump to pick the next Supreme Court justice! Come on, esteemed opponent, tell everyone how eager you are to let a President Trump seat a lifetime appointment on the Supreme Court!”

Well I figure that the GOP Senate is hoping that Trump will appoint his sister to the Supreme Court, as he suggested he would do.

The OP:
At the moment this is a matter of reading tea leaves. Once Trump clinches the nomination, there will be a lot of polling and political calculation on the part of Republicans running for office.

I think it’s fair to say that those who have endorsed Trump plan to ride on his coat tails. This includes 6 members of the House of Representatives.

Chris Collins of New York[404] (previously endorsed Jeb Bush)[405]
Scott DesJarlais of Tennessee[406]
Renee Ellmers of North Carolina[407]
Duncan D. Hunter of California[408]
Tom Marino of Pennsylvania[409]
Tom Reed of New York[410]