Home / General / As a Democrat, I Cannot Contain My Fear at This News

As a Democrat, I Cannot Contain My Fear at This News



All Democrats are now quaking in their boots.

Billionaire businessman and philanthropist David Koch has pledged “tens of millions of dollars” to help bankroll the campaign of Libertarian presidential candidate Gary Johnson, according to a source within Johnson’s campaign.

Koch’s money will be made available should Johnson, a former two-term Republican governor of New Mexico, secure his second consecutive Libertarian Party presidential nomination, the source said.

The Libertarians will select their presidential ticket during the party’s national convention later this month in Orlando.

When asked about Koch’s eight-figure pledge to support Johnson, a source close to David Koch did not deny that such an agreement is in place.

It would be very, very, very sad if this was true. As a Democrat, I truly fear 5-10% of Trump’s vote being siphoned off in critical states.

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google+
  • Linkedin
  • Pinterest
  • Rob in CT

    I wonder… I mean, there is a segment of young (and dumb*) people who are liberalish who might vote Libertarian as a protest vote. I guess I’d need poll data before assuming he will hurt Trump more than Hillary.

    As for the Kochs, this might not be totally dumb in that if this really does bring a bunch of disaffected R voters to the polls for Johnson, they will probably vote R downticket. If the alternative was them staying home, that’s a win.

    * – I know this breed. I was one.

    • I think it’s certainly likely that the Bernie diehards would vote for Johnson, but those people wouldn’t vote for a regular Democrat or at least Hillary anyway and probably are largely irrelevant since Johnson isn’t going to win. So I don’t know how many actual likely Hillary voters would vote for Johnson in this scenario, but probably not very many. Meanwhile, almost everyone on the right who would vote for Johnson probably would actually vote for Trump in the end.

      • Rob in CT

        There’s always the margins. I mean… yeah, there are no doubt hardcore BoBers who will never, ever, ever vote HRC and thus can’t be lost because they can’t be had.

        I think about Ross Perot in ’92. Pundit CV was that he hurt Bush more than Clinton. Upon investigation, this was debunked – he took votes fairly equally from them.

        What you say makes sense, but I have a doubt.

        • John F

          George Bush got 39 million votes in 1992, Perot got 20 million.

          In 1996 Perot got just 8 million votes, losing 12 million votes. Perot’s impact on Bush can clearly be shown by how many more votes Dole got in 1996, than Bush got in 1992…

          Let’s see, Bush got 39.1 million and Dole got 39.2 million…

          I don’t know how many of Perot’s 20 million would have voted for Bush/Clinton/no-one, but in 1996 100,000 of them apparently voted for Dole and 2.5 million for Clinton (and 9 million stayed home)

          • DilbertSucks

            Let’s see, Bush got 39.1 million and Dole got 39.2 million…

            I don’t know how many of Perot’s 20 million would have voted for Bush/Clinton/no-one, but in 1996 100,000 of them apparently voted for Dole and 2.5 million for Clinton (and 9 million stayed home)

            That seems a little too simplistic. In 1988, George HW Bush received 49 million votes to Dukakis’s 42 million. In 1992, Bill Clinton won 45 million votes to Bush’s 39 million. Where did those 10 million people who voted for Bush in 1988 but not in 1992 all go? Especially since Clinton received only around 3 million more votes than Dukakis did?

            • John F

              Of course it is simplistic, but note, turnout was far higher in 1992 than in 1988 or 1996- so the really simplistic answer is that a lot of folks voted in 1992 who otherwise would not have voted.

              Any way, Reagan won 58.8 to 40.6 in 1984 – is it even conceivable that anyone (R or D) could win by such a margin today under any circumstances? Per Roper he got 66% of the white vote, 9% of the black vote and 34% of the Hispanic vote, per RCP’s demographic toy if a candidate did that in 2016 he’d win 52.9 to 47.1.

              In 2004, Bush got 58% of the white vote, 11% of the black vote, 44% of the Hispanic vote and 43% of the Asian vote and won easily, per RCP’s demographic toy if a candidate did that in 2016 he’d lose 50.0 to 50.0 (lose the Electoral college)

          • DilbertSucks

            And it’s also worth noting that while Perot’s 1996 run didn’t receive as much press, he did receive 8.4% of the vote, translating to roughly 8 million votes. So to review the trends from this time:

            1988: Bush: 49 million, Dukakis: 42 million

            1992: Bush: 39 million, Clinton: 45 million, Perot: 20 million

            1996: Dole: 39 million, Clinton: 47 million, Perot: 8 million

            2000: Dubya: 50.5 million, Gore: 51 million

            So while there was a gradual increase in Democratic voters, the Republicans suffered a steep decline in years 1992 and 1996 before bouncing back in 2000. Hmm…

            • John F

              To continue:
              2004: Dubya: 62 million, Kerry: 59 million

              2008: McCain: 60 million, Obama: 69.5 million

              2012: Romney: 60.9 million, Obama: 65.9 million

          • Bill Murray

            according to the exit polls, 38% of Perot voters would have voted for Bush, 38% for Clinton and 24% for someone else or no one


          • Paedio

            A review of the polling data for 1992 is revealing. When Perot left the race in June it was thus:
            Bush 33%
            Clinton 27%
            Perot 32%

            Just before Perot got back in in September it had changed to:
            Bush 38%
            Clinton 54%

            That certainly suggests that Clinton benefitted far more than Bush from Perot’s exit. But the final vote count tells quite a different story:

            Bush 37%
            Clinton 43%
            Perot 19%

            Clinton had an 11% decrease from his highest poll number while Bush saw only 1%. This is why the idea that Perot caused Bush to lose is a myth.

            • Rob in CT

              Replying here, but really this is to follow up on all those who provided the data to back up my recollection.

              So, in the end, it appears that Perot took roughly equal # of votes from the Ds and Rs in 1992 (one could even argue he took more from Clinton, based on Paedio’s post, but I’m not sure I buy that).

              Ross Perot wasn’t running as a libertarian, but he was like the ultimate deficit scold. He coupled this with anti-free trade (specifically anti-NAFTA) messaging. So it may be that he’s a poor proxy for what Johnson could do this year. The trade thing seems key to the siphoning off of left-leaning votes. Also, Jill Stein does seem like a more likely beneficiary of disaffected lefty votes.

              I guess I just pick up a lot of liberalatarian vibes from some pro-Bernie folks (the ones for whom Hillary’s FP record seems to be not only their #1 issue, but the only issue that matters). The same sort of people who tend to be Paul-curious, you know? This may be projection on my part, having my own tendencies in that direction in the past.

              We’ll see.

              • sanity clause

                Perhaps a good way to dampen lefty-libertarian support for the Johnson-Weld ticket would be for one of the Dem PACs to run ads glowingly praising Weld’s career as a Responsible Mainstream Establishment politician.

      • Cheerful

        There was some criticism of Johnson recently on one of the right-wing Cruz supporting blogs because he refused to say that Jewish bakers could deny cakes to Nazi wedding couples. Or something like that. (I believe one of his competitors for the Libertarian crown was more willing to side with the baker). I think there’s a chunk of the conservative Nevertrump group (vocal though probably numerically small) who will find Johnson unacceptably liberal.

        • NonyNony

          Doesn’t matter – he’ll draw enough Republicans who refuse to vote for Trump to help downticket.

          I suspect that money will also be funneled to Constitution Party candidate Darrell Castle, who given the historic positioning of the Constitution Party might be able to bring those Cruz supporters who just can’t pull the lever for Trump to the polls.

          They’re going to make sure they hold the Senate, even if Trump can’t take the White House.

          • busker type

            excellent point… Koch has no illusion that Gary Johnson will amount to beans, but he sees this as a good investment in downticket races.

        • Henk

          Hmmm…I can’t imagine a Nazi wanting a Jew to cook her wedding cake.

          • ajay

            On the other hand, if I were a Jewish baker, I would rather enjoy the opportunity to cook a cake that I knew was going to be eaten by a lot of Nazis.

            • Colin Day

              That’s as probable as a Jewish guy making a Hitler rap video.


              Or were you suggesting that the cake might have some “unusual” ingredients?

              • ajay

                Or were you suggesting that the cake might have some “unusual” ingredients?

                Spot on.

                • los

                  a file, to file through the camp barred windows?

        • BobBobNewhartNewhartSpecial

          I think there’s a chunk of the conservative Nevertrump group (vocal though probably numerically small) who will find Johnson unacceptably liberal.

          I can’t really see any of the Cruzbot faction of the #NeverTrumpers going for Johnson. He is pro-drug legalization, and although he tries to thread the needle a bit on these two, also basically pro-open borders and pro-choice. The Cruz supporters that don’t fall in line behind Trump will more likely protest by voting another third party that’s more conservative, writing in Ted, or just leaving it blank. If Johnson can appeal to any disaffected voter, it seems like it might be some small fraction of the #BernieorBust crowd.

      • Apparently the story is false. Both Johnson and Kochs deny it.

        • I for one can’t believe that the Daily Howler would be wrong. I still pray for the story to be true though.

          • Pseudonym

            Leave Bob Somerby out of this—at least he’s had some valuable insights once or twice.

            • CrunchyFrog

              Points for which he took 8 posts each consisting of 10,000 words to make.

            • witlesschum

              I remember he called Jon Meacham then of Newsweek “Parson Meacham” one time. That was really great.

          • I wonder if he’s learned the difference between Iran and Iraq yet?

          • Bill Murray

            the story was The Daily Caller, not The Daily Howler

      • I think it’s certainly likely that the Bernie diehards would vote for Johnson

        The LP has been thinking it has a chance with disaffected leftists for a long time, based on perceived areas of common interest like anti-interventionist foreign policy and drug legalization.

        Historically, it has worked out about as well as Republicans trying to win black votes by campaigning against immigration.

        If it didn’t work in the first election after the invasion of Iraq, why would it work now?

        • whispers

          Bernie supporters who don’t want to vote for Clinton are going to vote for Jill Stein long before voting for Gary Johnson. The Libertarian philosophy is very unappealing to liberals. “Hey, let’s free market everything!” Um, no.

        • DocAmazing

          Back in my more militant anarchist days, I tried to make common cause with Bay Area Libertarian groups based on those perceived common interests. The problem is that Libertarians have real short attention spans, don’t like to do any kind of real organizing, and can’t lose sight of their underlying distaste for the non-rich. (I also tried to see if there was any common ground with the anti-government militia crowd. Short form: them peoples is stoopid.)

    • Steve LaBonne

      They’ve said explicitly that this is the plan- punt the presidential race but get voters out to vote for conservative Rs downticket. It’s not a stupid plan, sadly.

      • royko

        It’ll probably help them, but at the same time, if I were them, I’d worry that the prospect of an even bigger Presidential blowout might dispirit their voters even more.

      • Lev

        Eh, it’s a little stupid. More than a little, maybe. If the Libertarian Party cracks 5% it becomes eligible for federal funding, meaning they’d have more resources to recruit, advertise, etc. If the Kochs lead the pure libertarians out of the GOP they may not come back, giving the Trumpian contingent even more sway, and bolstering the Libertarian Party as a spoiler in the future. It’s a convoluted and desperate plan. The smart move would be to just do nothing and let Trump lose, then pick up the pieces. Thankfully, the Koch brothers are inveterate meddlers who can never, ever let anything be.

        • Pseudonym

          If the Libertarian Party accepts federal funding it sort of dilutes its brand though.

          • witlesschum

            Ayn Rand disagreed.

            • busker type


    • tsam

      I mean, there is a segment of young (and dumb*) people who are liberalish who might vote Libertarian as a protest vote.

      I’m guessing them guys* will do what they’ve always done–not vote at all and congratulate all the shit right out of themselves.

      *seems like they’re all dudes

      • GHorn


      • Snarki, child of Loki

        I will ABSOLUTELY* consider voting Libertarian, if they show the GOPers are whiny cowards by holding an open-carry nominating convention!

        (* not to be considered a factual statement)

      • Manny Kant

        I have a Bernie Broish friend who normally votes for himself for all offices

        • los

          friend who normally votes for himself for all offices
          Thats one less vote for me. Yor friend is des pickle bell11!!

          i alwase bid 1 penny on everything on ebay
          Ernest T. Blogger

    • delazeur

      There are a lot of men in their twenties who complain about how “the system” is corrupt and support Sanders, and there are also a lot of men in their twenties who complain about how “the system” is corrupt and support libertarians, but I am not convinced they are the same men. Hard to tell them apart, in any case.

      • tsam

        It is–I sense a whole lot of confusion from them, which IMO stems from being uninformed and/or misinformed about a whole bunch of stuff. These seem to be the people who think a federal budget is something like a household budget, which is like 106.3% bonkers.

      • Sly

        Hard to tell them apart, in any case.

        Ask them what they think about feminism. If they proceed to rant incoherently, then they’re definitely either.

  • DAS

    The libertarian I know best is not very keen (or so he says) on big business just as he’s not keen on big government. I wonder how he’ll react to this news

    • Rob in CT

      Apparently he doesn’t know about the history of the Libertarian Party?

      • addicted44

        Sounds like Libertarian is the new Independent.

        I’m too pure to declare for an actual party has switched to I’m too pure to declare for the corrupt primary parties, so I will go with #3.

        • DAS

          New Independent? How is this “new”?

          My best friend’s mother was a “libertarian” when I was growing up. She was in no way a libertarian but rather a sort of moderate: she was a religious conservative, which precluded her being a Democrat but too ashamed of the nuts in the GOP (even back in the 1980s/1990s, they were too far to the right for her) to be a Republican. So she was a “libertarian”.

          • tsam

            Couldn’t just go with centrist? That at least has a slight amount of respectability to it. Libertarians have always been goofy as hell–at least in everything I’ve ever seen of them.

          • CrunchyFrog

            I know the type. “libertarian” means anti-big government when it comes to preventing me from forcing non-Xtian children to pray to Jesus in schools, giving handouts to blahs, keeping me from driving like a bat out of hell on the interstate (in the 80s the limit was still 55), and environmental regs that cost some local people I know some jobs. But it doesn’t mean cutting my social security, medicare, environmentalist regs that give me safe food and clean air and water, or bombing the shit out of dark skinned people far away that the media tells me are bad.

            You know, selfish – what’s in it for me. The trick is labeling anything I don’t want as big government and anything I do want as essential services.

            • tsam

              Yeah–the ones who call themselves socially liberal and fiscally conservative, apparently able to ignore the tension between those concepts.

  • FMguru

    I feel…not sympathy, but a sort of wry amusement towards the Koch brothers. They spent a zillion dollars and a lot of effort over the course of multiple decades to subvert and take over our democracy, and on the brink of capturing the entire Republican party, here comes this vulgar not-even-a-real-billionaire know-nothing to effortlessly and almost instantly seize control of the whole thing. No wonder the Koch’s are flailing and dispirited.

    Ha ha ha.

    • Hogan

      I don’t know, I think the larger plan was always “one state at a time.”

      • witlesschum

        I read a story recently alleging that they’d decided their sojourn into national politics had been a bad investment, because they had damaged their brand and not gotten as much out of it as they expected in regards to changes in the system. This, supposedly, is also why you see commercials with Koch Industries’ smiling, diverse workforce on TV during Jeopardy the last six months or so. Don’t know if this means that was wrong, or they’ve just decided they need to stop associating with Republicans at the national level.

        • According to Dark Money, after 2012 the Kochs were utterly flummoxed that their chosen candidate lost to Obama, and they utilized a bunch of analytics and focus groups to try and figure out why. After collating all the data, they and their operatives realized that they had an image problem: sure, they were winning a lot of elections, but people just didn’t like them. People saw the Kochs’ positions as being motivated solely by greed.

          The Kochs in particular and many of their Republican stooges in general have been going on an image re-branding tour ever since. In addition to the commercials and the formerly-reclusive brothers appearing in the media, consider how recently Paul Ryan, one of the Kochs’ most beloved politicians, publicly said that he was sorry for how he used to call the poor, “takers.” It’s all a fucking act.

        • Bufflars

          Hell, Koch Industries is one of the advertisers donors on NPR now.

    • JustRuss

      I must admit, thinking of the Kochs’ disappointment at dumping a zillion dollars into the Republican primaries only to get punked by Trump makes me feel a bit better about this crazy old world of ours.

  • keta

    As a sentient human, I cannot contain my amusement that anyone cites The Daily Caller as a “news source.”

  • Bruce Vail

    Johnson got .99 percent of the national vote in 2012.

    If Romney had gotten every single one of Johnson’s vote, he still would have lost.

    • Johnson didn’t have Koch and Steve Wynn behind him in 2012.

      • Judas Peckerwood

        All he’s got to do now is nail down Joe Lieberman’s endorsement and he’s got a real shot.

        • The Temporary Name

          Lieberman’s outrage over a blowjob may be an obstacle.

          • Lev

            I would think Johnson’s dovish foreign policy would be the major obstacle here.

    • CaptainBringdown

      “We are the .99%!”

    • DilbertSucks

      Most people who vote Libertarian do so primarily for the economic doctrine with their stances on social issues as a side bonus. Libertarian-style economic policies were already well represented by the Mitt Romney/Paul “Ayn Rand” Ryan ticket.

    • UserGoogol

      1% is still enough to swing a close election. 2012 was not a close election, and it looks like 2016 won’t be, but it’s nice to have insurance.

    • los

      and Romney isn’t even on the 2016 ballot. Good News for Gary Johnson (just gets better every four years)

  • Murc

    Wait… what?

    Isn’t this precisely the strategy the Kochs abandoned back in the early eighties precisely because they realized it wasn’t working?

    I mean, yes, libertarianism has always been their true love, but they had, apparently, worked out many years ago that trying to come at the system from the outside was a fools errand and instead you come at it from within, which means, if you’re a corporate feudalism type, working within the Republican Party.

    Why do they think things have changed?

    • John F

      Trump is what changed.

    • NonyNony

      Trump. Trump has screwed up their plans by taking over the GOP that they had worked so hard to hollow out before they could climb in and start working the controls. So now they’ll fall back, keep a hand in, and hope to be able to pick up where they left off in 2020.

      To a degree, maybe playing the spoiler here helps their longer term gameplan if they can keep Trump from becoming the leader of the GOP. A Libertarian spoiler to help deny Trump the presidency while also throwing Clinton’s legitimacy into doubt would maybe help with the 2020 election.

      • CD

        There’s also a small chance that the R party really does fall apart, and then their end of it needs a new vehicle.

        Plus, as one of them already said, from their point of view HRC may be better than Trump

        • humanoid.panda

          I think that the presumption that they are arcvillains with a 20 step to take over the world is a little bit silly. We easily recognize that rich people are dilettantes when they go outside their area of competency to tackle education or sports. I think that this exactly what happened to the Koches: they were sold on a plan of purchasing utopia for a couple of billion dollars, were taken to the cleaners in 2012, and then again in 2016, and are now licking their wounds.

          [I,for once, always found the Koch Brothers, with their very detailed ideological platform that doesn’t appeal to any constitutency not paid by them, as less frightening than single issue billionaires like Adelson. No matter how much the Koches try, they are not going to turn America into Galt’s Gulch. But a republican president is not going to pick up fights with Adelson over Israel, or work hard to investigate his Macao mafia connections].

          • brendalu

            They’re off to a good start in Wisconsin.

          • twbb

            Agreed about Adelson; dude is a particularly nasty piece of work, and at least the Kochs generally seem to care about the country (just not everybody in it). Adelson seems to care just about himself and Likud.

          • los

            Just two oligarchs won’t alone bring on Rapture.
            Murdoch apparently likes Ailes guiding foxnews. Ailes needs O’Reilly and others.
            (whichever tyrant was handy), who needed his death squads.
            Saddam Hussein had his apparatus.

    • CP

      I hope you’re not suggesting that we interrupt our enemy when he’s making a mistake.

      • The Temporary Name

        You mean our pal the political wizard.

    • ColBatGuano

      libertarianism has always been their true love

      I think reduced taxes and deregulation are their true loves. They’ll happily throw out the social libertarianism to get those.

      • los

        that the Kochs fund social authoritarians, proves which policies the Kochs readily ‘throw under the libertarian bus.’

  • Todd

    Johnson/Weld. The Chamber of Commerce will not be denied.

    • leftwingfox

      I don’t want my Johnson welded!

      • DAS

        As long as nobody invokes Rule 34 here

    • Jeff R.

      Ah yes, Bill Weld, Bill Clinton’s nominee to be ambassador to Mexico. Weld was the last Republican I ever voted for. I was just following my rule: vote the most liberal candidate who has a reasonable change of winning.

      • Lev

        Still don’t know what MA Dems were thinking running John Silber that year. It’s hard to think of a blue state party that has made so many goofs in high office nominations. Coakley over Capuano in 2009 is the political Brock for Broglio.

        • JL

          I really, really don’t understand why we keep nominating Coakley for stuff. Even though she’s an improvement over Silber.

  • Nooooooooo! Not that!

  • cackalacka

    If I recall the Libertarian ads the last go-round, you would have thought about candidate whats-his-face was the second coming of Cheech and Engels. They definitely targeted the D column in my television market.

  • DilbertSucks

    FWIW, Ron Paul has repeatedly expressed opposition to Donald Trump and is now registered as a Libertarian:


    If some of Paul’s old grassroots support gets behind Gary Johnson combined with donors like the Koch brothers, he could garner enough support to appear at the debates. Democrats should help this happen. The more exposure he receives, the more votes he could siphon away from Trump. It would be beautifully apt if Hillary had her own counterpart to Ross Perot in this election year.

    • DAS

      Except it is better for Democrats for those voters to stay home than for those voters to go to the polls and vote down-ballot for the GOP.

      • DilbertSucks

        Do people still think that Democrats will win in a landslide this year?

        There probably is a decent % of Republican voters preparing to hold their nose and vote for Trump who might switch to Johnson if they were exposed to his message. Not anything close to a majority, but enough to possibly make a difference in critical states.

        • humanoid.panda

          It depends how you define landslide. If you take the 2012 ethnic group numbers, and presume the minority vote gets goes from 28% to 30% of vote, then the final outcome looks awfully close to 2008- and that election was as close to a landslide as we’ve had in recent years.

          • Malaclypse

            If you take the 2012 ethnic group numbers

            There was a VRA in 2012.

      • DilbertSucks

        Also: Johnson’s running mate is William Weld, a former moderate Republican from Massachusetts. If they position themselves as a moderate conservative option for Republicans who are turned off by Trump’s nativism, authoritarianism, and vulgarity, they could siphon away votes in states like New Hampshire, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, as well as Rubio/Kasich voters in Ohio and Virginia.

        This would also allow Hillary to pivot to the left in the general election to satisfy the progressive base without forfeiting moderate Republican votes to Trump.

        • humanoid.panda

          I don’t think that the goals of appealing to progressives as well as moderate republicans are diametrically opposed this year.

          Judging from the primary, in which she moved left, but refused to accept Sanders’ more hardcore positions, Hillary will run on 3 planks
          1. Family-friendly policies (pre-K, improvements to ACA, family leave, amelioration of college debt), funded by tax hikes on wealthy.
          2. “I’m a steady hand.”
          3. My opponent is a lunatic.

          I don’t think that anything here is offensive to moderate republicans, nor to anyone but the most radical of Bernie’s supporters.

          • humanoid.panda

            In fact, what I think is lost in the noise and racism and the utterly terrifying prospect of Trump becoming president, is that unlike in 2012, the Romney/Ryan movement conservative agenda proved to be nothing but a phantom. The top 3 candidates in both parties are people who:
            1. Want to maintain the Obama welfare state expansion
            2. Want to radically expand it.
            3. Want a welfare state for white people only.

            The idea that a Democrat needs to run to the center in the general (on economics at least) is dead, if not yet buried.

            • David Broder

              The idea that a Democrat needs to run to the center in the general (on economics at least) is dead, if not yet buried.

              I resemble that remark!

            • DilbertSucks

              3. Want a welfare state for white people only.

              You don’t have Donald Trump in mind, do you?


          • AMK

            Nope. The few “moderate republicans” left are socially moderate–they’re not religious and so not particularly enthused about the culture war planks in the platform; they don’t hate browns as infidel threats to their jobs, and they don’t like Trump because they feel he’s both unelectable and fake. But as soon as you say “tax hikes on the wealthy” 98% of them will pull his lever.

            • Colin Day

              But as soon as you say “tax hikes on the wealthy” 98% of them will pull his lever.

              Yes, but will they vote for him?

              • Hogan


    • Redwood Rhiadra

      If some of Paul’s old grassroots support gets behind Gary Johnson…

      Paul’s old “grassroots” support was basically Stormfront and other white supremacists. Who are solidly behind Trump.

    • los

      Ron Paul ran as LP 1988.
      Then was a maybe GOP nominee 2008, 2012
      Now after acquiring name recognition from GOP run… If some of Paul’s old grassroots support gets behind Gary Johnson combined with donors like the Koch brothers, he could garner enough support to appear at the debates. .. push the LP out of ‘third partyness’.

      There are parallel thoughts about the organization that Sanders spurred while running as a Democrat. The national recognition may give the same people ‘critical mass’ to push a ‘third party’ out of consigned ‘thirdness’.

  • David Broder

    edit, moved

  • apogean

    This actually seems like a reasonable move from the Koch’s perspective. I mean, they’re not stupid, they have to know he’s not going to win and mostly take votes from Trump. I think it’s clear they don’t want Trump to win, and they’ve even made statements to the effect that they would prefer Hillary. The fact that this has a secondary impact of making Hillary’s win is a feature, not a bug, and they can bring more attention to libertarian causes while not having to support her directly.

  • Agreed this is terrible, terrible news, but you can console yourself that things could be worse: Suppose a few Libertarian candidates for Congress rode the Koch-tails to 10% or so in competitive districts?

    That would be awful!!

It is main inner container footer text