This intriguing article in the Washington Post (paywalled or use up a view) discusses the possibility that Justin Amish, erstwhile Tea Partier and now enjoying a moment of fame as the first Republican representative to declare that Trump should be impeached, might run for POTUS as a Libertarian in 2020.
The article reminds how other Libertarian presidential candidates like Ross Perot in the 90’s, and Gary Johnson more recently, picked up a sizeable share of the vote, especially in deep red country.
It does not take much imagination to see how this could pose a huge threat Trump’s re-election chances. Maybe a right wing Nader effect? (Trump’s Nadir?) Or am I just being too optimistic?
There just aren’t that many real, capital L, small government Libertarians out there. Most of them are people who don’t really understand or care about politics or government and those already have their protest candidate in Trump. They’ll be chanting “Drain the swamp!” with the Swamp Lord himself through 2020.
Unless Amash’ calls for impeachment starts a wave of honest reflection in the GOP he’s going to sink without a trace.
I don’t expect this defection to cause a break in his support, but it’s not insignificant either. Same with Trump’s associates’ convictions, the Mueller findings, and other little things. They chip away. If anything, they at least give some Trump supporters a backdrop and a reason to defect if the economy declines – which is when his collapse in support will truly begin.
funny thing is the tea party is what helped trump get elected in the first place … with their “revolt” over the then moderate republican party’s policies
If you look at Amash, he’s been pretty consistent. He supported that bat-shit nutter Ron Paul, but other than that, he’s been a respectable conservative in a number of ways.
Meh. Having a Libertarian in the race didn’t stop Trump last time (though it certainly helped the Dems), and I don’t see that Amash would be a stronger candidate than Gary Johnson.
Nitpicking the OP, Ross Perot ran as an independent, not a Libertarian.
Not to be flip about it, but most of the people I meet who call themselves “libertarian” fall into two groups: “let me smoke weed,” and “cut my taxes.”
There just aren’t that many tax-cutting weed-smoking voters out there who aren’t already living off the grid to be much of an influence.
Libertarians won’t win or spoil the next election. They can hope to get to 5% (3% in 2016) for the voluntary funding.
Amash is one of the more consistent votes in congress. He will vote against the grain if (he believes) it’s not constitutionally supported. Sort of like Ron (and not Rand), without the flirtations with far right/paleo zines. I always appreciated that he often explains his vote.
Gary Johnson did the worst in deep red country, i.e. the Bible Belt MS/AL. He did best in his blue home state of NM, of course, but otherwise OK, ND, WY, MT. Only one or two of those would I call deep red, and even so Wyoming conservatism is different from Alabama.
Libertarians are Republicans who like weed, or Republicans who don’t want to take personal responsibility for electing any. Gary Johnson did better than any Lib candidate in history, getting over 3% of the vote where they usually get between 0.50% and 1%. This was doubtless due to public disgust for both of the genuine candidates rather than any foolish embrace of libertarianism.
Amash isn’t going to run as a Libertarian. He’ll be lucky to keep his seat with the backlash he’s getting from the MAGAbots. This time around I expect the minor parties to go back in the shadows as the Democrats will nominate someone who isn’t so unappealing.
now that pot is legal in various states and more will likely legalize it what does that mean for Libertarians? I guess most pot smokers will stay with the party.
I think that there are quite a few people out there who would rather have a Democrat in office than Trump, but can’t bring themselves to vote for a Democrat (the folks I know in this category would cite the Democratic pro-choice views as being impossible to get over in the voting booth). I think this would give these people someone to vote for other than Trump. Hell, have him run solely in his home state of Michigan and siphon off a handful of votes, and Trump loses that state.
The impact of such a candidacy can be viewed through lenses other than the mere vote totals accumulated. If you’ve got two candidates trashing trump it might have a bigger impact than just one doing so. I never thought that the Perot candidacy had any of an impact electorally, but it did hurt Bush in the manner described. And once someone decides to vote for one “not trump” it ain’t that big a jump to vote for the “not trump” who can actually win.
Apparently he didn’t get the memo that his most wealthy constituents and most-wealthy donors are one and the same. And that ol’ Betsy actually works for Trump.