Donald Trump

If David Duke Won, Wouldn't Republicans Have to Vote for Him?

The Donald Trump argument.


When David Duke announced last week that he would be running for Senate in Louisiana, GOP Chairman Reince Priebus swiftly sent out a tweet assuring America that the former Ku Klux Klan grand wizard's "hateful bigotry [has] no place in the Republican Party & the RNC will never support his candidacy under any circumstance."

No major party should ever consider supporting a candidate with a long history of vile bigotry—even if the candidate had a shot at winning the race. But the argument itself doesn't really mesh with what Priebus and others have been telling me this election cycle. 

What if there were a large field of GOP presidential candidates and, due to a confluence of events, someone like Duke fairly captured the Republican nomination? Would conservatives cast their votes for him in the general over someone as disagreeable as Hillary Clinton? I mean, you all know how terrible she is! 

What if Duke promised to nominate conservative Supreme Court justices? Let's say he drew up an extensive list of Federalist Society-approved justices who conservatives simply loved? Would they vote for him then? RNC spokesman Sean Spicer says no. Please don't tell me you're willing to surrender the court to a progressive agenda for a generation. If you don't vote for Duke it would be tantamount to abandoning law and order. As pro-Trump Republicans often stress, national elections are a binary choice. 

It's not just about justices, either. Duke would almost certainly build an impenetrable wall along the Mexican border to stop the flow of illegal immigration. Duke would promise to dismantle sanctuary cities. This would, I've been assured, save American lives and livelihoods. Polls show that most Republicans desire a more secure border. So what if he says some shocking things about Jews and African-Americans from time to time? 

Duke would also limit Islamic immigration to keep America safe again. Duke would shut down "unfair" trade agreements with Mexico, China and others—deals that purportedly cost millions of American jobs and destroy our manufacturing base. Duke might even pull out of the unfair World Trade Organization and punish unpatriotic companies that move their headquarters abroad. 

On foreign policy, he would demand that the Baltic states pay up. If not he would leave their fate to the whims of an autocratic Russia. Duke would rein in American involvement in the Middle East and Asia. Duke opposed the Iraq War, which, according to Trump, makes him one of the leading foreign-policy experts in the nation. 

These issues are the main thrust of Trumpism, the positions that rouse the base and distinguish the billionaire from a lily-livered GOP that has failed its constituency for the past 30 years. 

You know elitists would simply hate Duke, probably because the Klansman refuses to be constrained by political correctness. And if shunning political correctness is, in and of itself, a position worth celebrating in a candidate, Trump is a mere piker in comparison. Why not put the resources of the RNC behind someone who can discuss white working-class struggles in even starker terms? Americans are mad. They are scared. Duke will fight for them. 

Let's also not forget that Duke is not indebted to Wall Street or big donors like Mitt Romney. He does not answer to lobbyists like Jeb Bush. He is not an ordinary politician like Marco Rubio. He does not play by the rules. Shouldn't this be enough? 

Duke also won the primary process fair and square. Wouldn't Republicans be obligated to support him? Doesn't the "will of the people" transcend the piddling concerns of the sore losers? Isn't opposing the will of the majority tantamount to being a traitor to your cause? According to some of Trump's greatest allies in the Republican Party, imploring people to vote their conscience is now a "chilling" display of nonconformity. What could possibly be more important than the unification of a political party? 

No, I'm not arguing that Trump's aims and positions are indistinguishable from Duke's. The Republican nominee has already rebuked Duke "as quick as you can say it." If Trump's positions and disposition please you, feel free to support him. What I am contending is that arguments made by Trump's Republican allies meant to convince recalcitrant conservatives to vote for him are vacuous logical fallacies. 

As a Duke candidacy proves, it's possible to find people morally reprehensible, even if their views happen to intersect with yours on various issues. It is possible to sporadically agree with someone and also believe that this person undermines your cause in the long-run. It is possible to believe that a candidate who confuses vulgarity and fury with political incorrectness will corrode the idealism of your movement and push away voters who might one day see it your way. It is possible to find candidates from both parties unpalatable at the same time. 

Is David Duke preferable to Hillary Clinton? At this point—although I'd be somewhat nervous to hear the polling results—I suspect a large majority of Republicans would contend that he's not. If this is true it's because, to one extent or another, even partisans are forced to make moral calculations about the worthiness of candidates. In scale, Trump is not David Duke. But let's stop pretending that an election is always a simple choice.

NEXT: "Have You Even Read the United States Constitution?" Father of a Fallen Muslim Soldier Challenges Trump at the DNC

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Louisiana has a jungle primary so there is no “nomination” to be won. Though it could be like his gubernatorial campaign where he outpolled the more popular Republican and gave us that the immortal line “vote for the crook, it’s important.”

    1. And that line has already been used to justify supporting Clinton.…..important/

      But this election has given us dueling slogans: “Vote for the crook, it’s important” vs “vote for the clown, it’s important.”

      1. my roomate’s ex-wife makes $64 an hour on the internet . She has been without a job for six months but last month her payment was $17848 just working on the internet for a few hours. go to the website >>>>>>>.

    2. My last pay check was $9500 working 12 hours a week online. My sisters friend has been averaging 15k for months now and she works about 20 hours a week. I can’t believe how easy it was once
      I tried it out. This is what I do… GO THIS WEBSTE…

    3. Start making cash right now… Get more time with your family by doing jobs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $16000 a month. I’ve started this job and I’ve never been happier and now I am sharing it with you, so you can try it too. You can check it out here… Read More This Website…

  2. As pro-Trump Republicans often stress, national elections are a binary choice.

    Fuck Republicans. They’ve told us time and again over the past year that TRUMP is not one of them. If you want to vote for a Republican my Neocon friends (who aren’t voting for Hitlery) tell me they’re running this ex-governor named “Gary Johnson” or something.

    1. That’s weird that you would barely know Gary Johnson’s name after posting three hundred times about how terrible he is.

      1. Look, the important thing here is that libertarians might not vote for Trump. And voting for Trump is the only thing that matters to scared little children who need a big, strong Daddy to take care of them.

        1. In 2008, the GOP clearly told libertarians they were not welcome, and that their views would receive no platform.

          In 2016, libertarians that their views should finally understand that their views do not resonate with GOP voters even when moderated with some conservativism. Instead of Rand, GOP primary voters selected Trump.

          Sure, Gary Johnson fails any number of libertarian purity tests. But he’s the only candidate on the ballot that’s not well and truly horrible.

          1. In 2016 libertarians missed their chance to recruit disaffected conservatives and conservatarians by pandering to their libertine/liberaltarian wing. The reason johnson won’t get my vote this year is contained in this very sentence.

        2. Screw you. I plan to vote for Trump solely to help keep the power hungry Clinton out of the office. She has already declared a number of tax increases that will directly screw me and my family.

        3. I know a lot of young women that need a big strong daddy to take care of them.

    2. my Neocon friends (who aren’t voting for Hitlery) tell me they’re running this ex-governor named “Gary Johnson” or something

      1. There are neocons who aren’t voting for Hillary?
      2. You know that many neocons?
      3. There are neocons who honestly find neoliberal Johnson preferable?

      Or do you just not know what “neocon” means?

  3. If David Duke Won, Wouldn’t Republicans Have to Vote for Him?

    1. If Hitler won the Democratic nomination, wouldn’t Democrats have to vote for him? Because Trump is so awful, and Supreme Court appointments?

      Apparently this is what passes for a thoughtful analysis these days.

      1. Yeah.

        Exactly how is this “what if” game any more applicable to the GOP than it is the Donkey party?

        It seems that they keep on trying to peddle the notion that Trump is uniquely worse than Hillary – something that none of them have actually come close to proving.

        1. That may be their agenda, but it is not what Harsanyi is claiming in this particular argument.

          1. He is doing nothing more than playing a “what if” game that is not one iota more applicable in any way to the GOP than it is to the Dems.

            That is all.

          2. “That may be their agenda, but it is not what Harsanyi is claiming in this particular argument.”

            Harsanyi is making a constrained hypothetical argument. Which is pretty much always a bullshit argument. Either it’s equally applicable to every side or it’s not. If not then it’s pure Principals over Principles.

        2. ^
          This x e=mc2

      2. And….if Karl Marx won the Dem nomination….if Stalin won the Dem nomination…If Hugo Chavez won the Dem nomination….If Pol Pot won the Dem nomination….and on, and on, and on.

        1. they won it in 2008 and 2012

      3. Harsanyi’s point is that the Republican establishment has been justifying their reluctant support for Trump, and selling him to reluctant conservatives, with arguments that even David Duke could fit through. The problem with your riposte is that the Democrats have been doing nothing of the kind. The Democratic establishment–who, first of all, is not at all reluctant in their support for Hillary in the first place, so has not been making that particular move–has not been trying to convince reluctant leftists using arguments that even Hitler ocould fit through. They certainly are not limited to some sort of abstract assertion that the other guy is “so awful.”

        1. Really? Because what we’ve been hearing out of the Democrats is mostly how awful Trump is. And using Trump’s alleged awfulness to try to rein in the Bern victims. Which is pretty fucking similar to what Harsanyi is arguing against on the Republican side.

          1. Have we been listening to the same Democratic Party? Because they have been offering up all sorts of positive arguments for why Hillary is better at implementing the progressive agenda.

            1. Like what? She’s a woman? She has “experience”?

              The RNC also says Trump’s a successful businessman with experience.

              So what?

              1. That she is not a racist, that she is not a sexist, that she will stand up for abortion rights, that she will honor NATO and kick Putin in the balls next time she sees him, that she will close the wage gap and force Christians to bake wedding cakes for gays, that she will overturn Citizens United, that she will end global warming and stick it to the gun nuts, and so on. Come on now.

                1. … so basically, you’re saying that the Democrats are just full out lying, which is a tactic that could be used to cover absolutely any possible candidate, whereas the Republicans are having a harder time lying about Trump (who is apparently going to put women back in the kitchen, blacks back in chains, and lick Putin’s balls all day long?), which is worse somehow because OMG DAVID DUKE.

                  That’s the dumbest fucking argument I’ve seen since the last time amsoc or mtrueman showed up.

                  1. I did not say it was better or worse; I just answered your question. You might want to stay on topic and engage the arguments I actually make, not some convenient straw man.

                    More importantly, why is everyone so fucking angry around here? I didn’t say anything nasty to you. And I have no idea who the fuck those people are.

                    1. And I have no idea who the fuck those people are.

                      Fair enough. They’re communists (really). And morons.

                      why is everyone so fucking angry around here?

                      Welcome to Hit and Run during election season.

                      You might want to stay on topic

                      You brought up the Democratic Party as a counterexample. While that’s not what Harsanyi was talking about per se, it it’s “on topic” for you, it’s “on topic” for me, too.

                      And I’m not constructing a straw man. I’m examining your argument in context. You’re saying that there is something unique about the Republicans’ arguments and how they enable a grotesque candidate like Duke. I’m saying no, it’s not unique, and providing a pretty strong reason.

                    2. Actually, WTF brought up the Democrats; I was replying.
                      Also, what you did was to put words in my mouth, saying that I said the Republican tactics were “worse” than the Democrats’. I said nothing of the kind; I made no moral comparison whatsoever. Your original claim was that the Democrats were saying nothing, true or false, on behalf of Hillary other than that she was a woman and had experience. Although this didn’t really address my original point, I simply replied that this was patently false. I don’t know where this idea came from that everyone seems to have that I am carrying water for the Democrats, even relative to the Republicans. I just can’t see the relevance to the point I am making.

                    3. You’re right, you didn’t bring up the Democrats. And you’re also right, you’re not strictly carrying water for them. You’re just saying that, if one squints the right way and doesn’t examine the matter too deeply, this pointless bullshit that Harsanyi penned might mean something.

                    4. I don’t even know how to reply at this point. Thank you for being more civil than others on here, but this really just contributes an insult to Harsanyi. This isn’t one of Reason’s better articles by a longshot, but it seems particularly clear to me that Harsanyi is simply illustrating that the Republican establishment has not been able to say much (true or even false) on behalf of Trump, whether or not he does deserve it. That is all. He is not addressing the Democrats, or Trump’s actual virtues, or anything else in this particular article.

                2. “That she is not a racist, that she is not a sexist…”

                  Hell no, she ain’t. She’ll take anybody’s money for a favor.

            2. Better than what, Trump? Well golly, there are pro-Trump arguments on why he would be better at implementing a conservative agenda.

              1. And Harsanyi’s point was that the arguments from the Republican establishment have been so weak that they could apply to David Duke.

                1. “And Harsanyi’s point was that the arguments from the Republican establishment have been so weak that they could apply to David Duke.”

                  Harsanyi and you are using a strawman argument. The GOP has a list of arguments of why they think that Trump is better than Hillary and I’ve never seen them state it’s because he’s a racist.

                  1. Of course not, and that is not remotely the point of the article or my comments.

                    1. “Of course not, and that is not remotely the point of the article or my comments.”

                      Bullshit. This is the second paragraph of the piece:

                      “No major party should ever consider supporting a candidate with a long history of vile bigotry?even if the candidate had a shot at winning the race. But the argument itself doesn’t really mesh with what Priebus and others have been telling me this election cycle. ”

                      Trump denies he’s a racist. The GOP denies he’s a racist. The entire crux of this article is that Trump is a racist just like David Duke and it attempts to “prove” this point by a list of comparisons that don’t make the point that he’s actually a racist.

                    2. Well, it’s no wonder that they don’t make that point because that is, indeed, not remotely the purpose of the article. The point is that the Republican establishment’s defenses of Trump could apply to Duke; that is how weak they are. Nobody except you has said anything about the Republicans supporting Trump because he is a racist, but they have used very harsh language in the past to condemn statements he has made. And given this, and the fact that his enemies are always–rightly or wrongly–accusing him of being a racist, it seems all the more glaring that they have not been defending him with arguments that could not indeed apply to David Duke.

                    3. I agree with you and Harsanyi. The frustration you’re hearing is really just a response to the pathetically softballed coverage of the DNC nihilist blinders notwithstanding (insert obligatory WHYCOME TALK FUNY inanity here).

                      There’s plenty of primarily or uniquely democratic hypocrisy that reason could have mentioned this week. Instead we’ve mostly been treated to a pox on both their houses vs. an appropriate level of directed criticism during the RNC.

                    4. It’s obvious to me that the dominant perspective at Reason is that Trump would be worse, much worse in fact, than Hillary. I wouldn’t quite characterize it as Hillary-over-Trumpism, because if Reason has a single greatest hobbyhorse this season, it’s advocacy for Johnson-Weld, and papering over their shortcomings. (I say this as a Johnson supporter myself.) Still, the overall coverage has not been very balanced as you say.

                      The reaction to this particular article has been a bit over the top, though, to say the least. This article is not about the Democrats. It simply isn’t. It seems odd to hold that one cannot write a piece that simply concerns the Republicans, that one is a partisan hack if one does not balance it out with a discussion of the Democrats and their shortcomings in that very article. And that’s the closest thing to a coherent point I’ve seen here.

                    5. Again, the reason you see much of that sensitivity is that reason writers appear to be nearly constitutionally incapable of writing an uneqivocal criticism of the democrats. Trump or the gop simply *must* be mentioned at all times. Just look at suderman today.

                    6. “Well, it’s no wonder that they don’t make that point because that is, indeed, not remotely the purpose of the article.”

                      And I disagree.

                      “The point is that the Republican establishment’s defenses of Trump could apply to Duke”

                      This is where the article falls apart:

                      Sure, if Duke’s posititions were hypothetically identical to Trump’s and Duke weren’t racist, then yes this would be true. But, so what? That’s not an argument with any kind of substance.

                      “Nobody except you has said anything about the Republicans supporting Trump because he is a racist …”

                      Ok, then what’s the point of the article. Why pick David Duke as an example? Racism is his defining characteristic. It’s disenguous to use a highly controversial figure, but then claim that his defining characteristic isn’t relevant to the point.

        2. You are correct the Democratic establishment is not reluctant in its support of Hillary, but otherwise you’re wrong.

          A lot of Democratic voters and especially self-identified leftists are reluctant to support her. And yes, the Democratic Party is trying to convince them with arguments that basically amount to “support Hillary because Trump would be worse” and “ignore her blantant criminality and corruption, they’re just right-wing fake scandals/talking points”.

          1. They might “basically amount” to that, but the point is that they are not, in fact, the sorts of arguments that Duke or Hitler could fit through.
            Of course Hillary is a criminal, but that is neither here nor there for this particular argument. Perhaps one might say that the Dems’ arguments could be applied to Sharpe James or some other political criminal, but even that’s not true. However preposterously, they have indeed been actively denying that Hillary is a criminal. The same cannot be said of the Republican establishment, who said all kinds of horrible things about Trump before declaring themselves reconciled and offering up the present weak sauce. Choose your poison as to which is worse, the baldfaced liars or the craven hypocrites. Either way, it’s not the point of the article.

            1. Of course Hillary is a criminal, but that is neither here nor there for this particular argument.

              … what

              1. Of course Hillary is a criminal, but that is neither here nor there for this particular argument.

                1. Really? You’re going to complain about people being angry, and then treat them like simpletons?

                  Gee, I wonder why people aren’t being nice to you…

                  1. First of all, they weren’t nice–and more importantly, weren’t being relevant–long before I posted that.
                    Second, I was under the impression that what I did was a harmless joke, a rather well known and trite one in fact. And I fail to understand how, if I was being insulting, treating you like a simpleton, being frivilous and not contributing to the discussion, or whatever, you were not doing the same to me when you did nothing more than echo what I had said back to me and simply added “What?” to it. That is kind of the gist of the joke–that the original response doesn’t really contribute anything but mockery, so here I am taking it literally and, in doing so, making myself guilty of the same offense.

                    1. I quoted what you said because the thread is getting too deep and one can’t tell the threading order any more. I was highlighting the fact that I was responding to something specific that you said. I mean seriously, lurk some more before you start getting offended at the conventions of this place.

                      And yeah, I was mocking you a bit, because you made an asinine argument. If Hillary Clinton being a criminal is irrelevant, then so is David Duke being an odious racist, which defeats what little purpose Harsanyi’s stupid argument has. You said something ludicrous.

                      You obviously aren’t getting the point of this criticism, but I don’t really care any more because this is far too much time wasted on an idiotic argument.

                    2. You “quoted what I said,” and then appended “What?” That is, as you point out, mocking under any conversational convention.

                      Hillary’s criminality is not “irrelevant” to her virtues as a potential commander in chief, but neither Harsanyi nor I are presently discussing that topic. We are discussing the quality of the Republican establishment defense of their support for Trump, period. Not whether Trump or Hillary is in fact worse. Not whether the Democrats have been doing something worse in the defense of their candidate.

                      If you really think my argument is asinine, ludicrous, and idiotic, then it only makes sense that you would mock it without engaging it. But that is indeed what you have been doing. You might have saved yourself the time.

        3. Please make the pro-HRC argument other than ‘the other guy is so awful’ and out yourself as a DNC hack.

          1. You’re fucking embarrassing yourself. Is this Reddit or something?
            I am not in the business of offering up pro-HRC arguments because I am not a HRC supporter; I am a Paul supporter turned reluctant Cruz supporter turned reluctant Johnson supporter who happens to be making a point that has nothing to do with who I support. I assure you no actual DNC hack would be on the Reason comments engaging with the likes of you. I’m just doing so because I’m pissed off that you’re taking down the entire tone of the conversation with your juvenile foil-hat nonsense while others are addressing the content of each others’ arguments. And now I’m barely better than you, so boo on me.

        4. What?

      4. Democrats are part of a hive mind. So yes, they will vote for whatever vile piece of shit foisted upon them, including Cankles.

        If they weren’t such fucking followers, maybe they would demand more of a nominee.

  4. Duke also won the primary process fair and square. Wouldn’t Republicans be obligated to support him? Doesn’t the “will of the people” transcend the piddling concerns of the sore losers? Isn’t opposing the will of the majority tantamount to being a traitor to your cause?

    Well if you claim that you will respect the will of the people and the primary process results without qualification it is hard to say that they don’t count if you don’t like the result.

  5. Sure, Harsanyi’s not conflating Trump with Duke here. Not one bit, even though he does just that for an entire article with one throwaway sentence saying that isn’t what he’s doing.

    It takes a special kind of asshole to give a preening moral lecture while you’re lying your ass off.

    1. I think we can officially declare Trump Derangement Syndrome on par with Obama Derangement Syndrome at this point. I used to think Harsanyi had interesting things to say…

      1. On the one hand, we have of Obama:

        1. He wasn’t born here, because his birth certificate wasn’t immediately presented, isn’t long enough, or looks fake
        2. He’s a Muslim, because he went to madrassa as a child in Indonesia
        3. He’s a communist, because he traveled in some of the same circles as Bill Ayers

        And now of Trump:

        1. He’s a sexist, because he doesn’t softball his criticism when talking to a woman
        2. He’s a racist, because he points out the contradictory nature of immigration and foreign policy talking points
        3. He’s a fascist, because he wants to make minor changes to defamation laws

        1. On Obama, the assertions made in parts 2 and 3 are nowhere near limited to the explanations you present. Ithere really is no equivalence.

          1. Yeah, ok, whatever. I’m sure the smoking gun of Obama’s Sharia Marxism is going to come out any day now. Just like Trump’s secret affiliation with the Klan.

    2. Who cares if he is insinuating that? I am not anywhere near as interested in parsing Harsanyi’s character or biases as I am his argument. And if you look beyond insinuation hunting to the material of his actual argument, no, he is not making any point that is dependent upon Trump being anything l?ike Duke. He could be Mother Theresa for all it matters. The target of this piece is not him but the Republican establishment–specifically that, whether or not one could, they in fact have not been justifying their support for Trump with anything stronger than arguments that could apply to someone as monstrous as Duke.
      That “one throwaway sentence,” far from being anomalous, is merely Harsanyi’s reminder to stay focused on his actual argument–that it does not, indeed, depend on viewing Trump as in reality monstrous.

      1. It’s the establishment’s job to sell the candidate who wins the primary, even if they didn’t support him or her. That does not mean, however, that people are obligated to vote for that candidate, nor more importantly that the vacuous nature of their arguments says anything about that candidate.

        I expect the party hacks to sell Trump now. He’s the party’s candidate. Just as I expect the Democratic Party to sell Clinton now (not that they weren’t before). But they’re both equally vacuous and and the fact that their arguments could apply to literally anybody has no bearing on the candidates actually running. The most you could take away from this is, if you don’t like the way the party operates, don’t give them money (a recommendation I would heartily support, for both parties).

        1. nor more importantly that the vacuous nature of their arguments says anything about that candidate

          Ok, strictly speaking, the vacuous nature of the party’s arguments may say something about the candidate; namely, that they don’t have substantive arguments and thus there must be something “lacking” in the candidate. However, as already pointed out, for this election cycle, such an inference is true of both parties and thus both parties’ candidates.

      2. oh nonsense. The Republican establishment is no more to blame for David Duke, then the Dem establishment is to blame for the dozens of corrupt, leftist extremists. It is an absurd article, based on a laughable strawman argument. Harsanyi needs to grow up a bit.

        But really, if we want to argue that strawman. Yes…if forced to vote between Hillary and Duke, I’d vote for Duke.
        Hillary is guaranteed….absolutely guaranteed….to be entirely interested in hording as much power and money for herself and her cronies at the utter expense of the rest of us. We have extensive proof of this and only the utterly delusional can deny her track record on this. With Duke at least I can take comfort in the fact that he doesn’t have the support structure or following to do much harm. Hillary does, and if elected will fuck us all.

        So screw you Harsanyi

        1. Harsanyi did not say that the Republicans were to blame for David Duke, or anything remotely close to that, and neither did I. Neither one of us even said that Hillary was less bad than Trump or vice versa. Matter of fact, our arguments don’t even depend on Trump being in fact bad at all, though Harsanyi certainly seems to suggest that and I certainly believe it.
          I have nothing particularly against Trump voters. I have no idea why so many of them in this comment section seem to have been set off by this topic, and are going off on all sorts of tangents attacking folks for their supposed Hillary over Trump agenda, instead of engaging with the substance of the argument at hand.

          1. What argument? The absurd strawman that Harsanyi has put forth? How is that an argument?

            1. Harsanyi is not putting forth a strawman. He is illustrating that the Republican establishment defenses of their support for Trump–the actual ones, not ones he made up–have been so weak that they could equally apply to Duke. That is the only point he is making.

              1. Now you are just being intentional obtuse.

                1. Fine, pal. Sounds like we’ve reached an impasse then.

                2. No he isn’t. He simply read and understood the piece.

                  1. No, it appears that he read the piece, but prefers to interpret it in his own biases rather then the direct words used.

                    Harsanyi created a logical fallacy by presenting an entire article describing a strawman of a David Duke presidential campaign, Then ending it with a “because….Trump”.

                    It’s a pathetic article and regardless of where you stand in this election, this kind of crap should be ridiculed.

  6. If Stalin won wouldn’t the Democrats have to vote for him? Gladly.

  7. To be fair I would vote for Cthulhu at this point

    1. If you are going to vote for a great evil, why not the greatest evil? Cthulhu ’16.

    2. +1 Ph’nglui mglw’nafh C’thulhu R’lyeh wgah’nagl fhtagn

      1. Oh please. Like we haven’t heard that before.

      2. la Shub-niggurath!…….for VP!

  8. Depends, who are his Supreme Court justice nomination picks?

    1. I believe his cousin Daisy is on the shortlist

      1. Thank you for that. I needed that humor induced endorphin release.

  9. A klutzy yada from relic town USA gets his own goddamn progressive brand microscope for reasons so motherfucking obvious the socialist eyeballs peering through the fucking eyepiece should be spilling gallons of personal self-worth onto their slides and petri dishes of diversion bedlam.

    1. Interesting……..but how does that tie into supply-side economics?

  10. If baby Hitler fucked your mom, wouldn’t you have to call him dad?

  11. I think that the Reason staff has better things to do than to troll conservatives…

    …like watching this very awesome James O’Keefe video! In it, O’Keefe goes undercover as a Hillary Clinton supporter at DNC convention. Frankly, the angry protesters make excellent points, like how they’ve been disenfranchised by the DNC, the Democratic Party establishment and political elites. They even call Hillary a cunt!

    Best of all, it briefly shows Reason’s own Robbie Soave and his hair!

    1. LOL. First rate trolling.

    2. I liked the once did where he got a Hillary delegate to admit gun control really IS about confiscation, and all the ‘responsible gun laws’ nonsense is bullshit.

  12. I expect this level of analysis from, say, the New York Times. Reason should be able to do better. Yes, the Republican Party has its share of revolting human beings. On the other hand, the Democrats have managed to nominate one of their worst to run for President.

  13. If Mumia Abu-Jamal had won, wouldn’t Democrats have to vote for him!!!!!!!!!!

  14. I’m glad to see Reason balancing it’s relentless attacks on Reps during Rep week with relentless attacks on Reps during Dem week.

    I had mydoubts, but you really pulled through.

    1. Look, we know Hillary is shitty. Clearly, you don’t know how shitty Trump is, which is why you have to be constantly reminded. Also, Hillary is probably not that shitty because she’s known. This is important to libertarians because reasons. Don’t think about it too much, and remember that Trump is uniquely awful.

      1. They’re totally the same party (actually finally kinda true with trump – gillespie finally gets to live his fever dream and with better music!) so criticism of one wing is the same as criticism of the other. Would you like some wedding cake?

  15. The dems would have voted for Sanders if he would have beat Hillary. As we all know,he’s a supporter of the most evil and murderous ideology known to man. Over 100,000,000 dead can’t be wrong.

  16. You don’t have to vote for anyone.

    That’s how our system works. If you’re so stupid that you don’t understand that, maybe you should be writing about something besides politics.

  17. A lot of people here would be happy to vote for David Duke.

    “He pisses the right people off.”

    “He’s trolling the hell out of the SJWs.”

    “The KKK is just a social club.”

    1. It sure sucks that you and your gatekeeper buddies dont have your echo chamber doesnt it?

      As someone said yesterday. You and a few others used to be smart and inciteful. Now your just angry monkeys flinging shit at everyone.

      1. You and a few others used to be smart and inciteful. Now your just angry monkeys flinging shit at everyone.

        And SIV used to say something other “STFU AND VOTE TRUMP” and PapayaSF used to do something other than suggest people who get fucked with by cops probably had it coming and the only good immigrant is a deported immigrant.

        This is the FULL RETARD election, no doubt about it.

        1. I couldnt agree more.

      2. Aw, someone got themselves a sockpuppet. Too afraid to go after me under your regular handle?

        1. Yes, Im afraid of a keyboard warrior on an internet blog. I live in deathly fear of the power you have to punish me with your words. We gonna compare dick sizes next? Maybe have a weight lifting contest? Compare bank accounts? What cha drivin brah?

          Holy shit man. Look at yourself. Youre becoming a caricature of yourself.

    2. A lot of people here would be happy to vote for David Duke.

      “He pisses the right people off.”

      “He’s trolling the hell out of the SJWs.”

      “The KKK is just a social club.”

      jeebus aich fukkin crist. This sounds like a goddamned amsoc post.

      What the hell is wrong with you all?

      It’s like you’re huffing derp—bad derp at that.

  18. BTW, did anyone else notice that Hillary was dressed like Lex Luther last night? Accident? I think not.

  19. Who would win in a fight Mighty Mouse or Superman?

    Really this is a sophomoric article. I’m beginning to wonder about my support of the Reason Foundation.

    1. Doctor Strange would kick both their asses.

      1. By the Mysic Moons of Munopor!

  20. Trump sucks and so does this stupid article.

    1. And Hillary [ Lexis Luther] doesn’t, hence Bill’s screwing around.

  21. Nobody learned in the vagaries of democracy would pledge to endorse the eventual nominee if David Duke were in the primary.

    However, I can’t blame Cruz too much. Trump’s success in the primary was even less likely than Duke’s successful 1991 primary run for governor in Louisiana. All of Louisiana Republicans I knew rejected Duke as well as George Bush, and voted for Edwin Edwards instead. A Republican couple I knew actually campaigned for Edwards with bumpers emblazoned, “Vote for the Crook; It’s Important.” on their cars. For those unfamiliar with Louisiana politics, Edwin Edwards was utterly and unabashedly corrupt and everybody knew it. Pundits characterized the race as “the lizard versus the wizard”.

    However, there’s a big difference between Clinton/Trump race and the Edwards/Duke race. Edwards was indeed corrupt, but he was corrupt within normal parameters. Clinton’s corruption is an example of how a difference in degree can become a difference in kind. Edwards was a small fry who would eventually be prosecuted for his crimes whereas Clinton lives above all law. Also, though I wouldn’t say Trump is only horrible within normal parameters, Trump is not David Duke.

    1. Accurate. Thanks.

  22. Wow…..way to spend an entire article making a laughable strawman.

  23. “If David Duke won…”

    If my aunt had balls…

    1. Yes, that’s exactly the argument this article is making.

    2. Hey, your aunt has the right to identify as whatever gender he or she wants and to have surgery to supplement his/her self-identification!

  24. This article is a text book example of a Guilt by Association Fallacy.

  25. What if Hillary Clinton won the Democratic party nomination for president. Wouldn’t Democrats have to vote for her?

    1. After reading my comment I have decided it is so subtle as to be obtuse.

      My point is, Hillary actually DID win the Dem nomination. David Duke isn’t nearly so bad as Hillary, and the Democrats are falling over each other to support her.

      If the election is indeed a binary choice then the clear lesser-of-evils is Trump.

      1. ^^^

        The one thing that amazes me in this election is the willingness of Dems to overlook the myriad of skeletons and dead bodies in Hillary’s closet. there are easily a half dozen major scandals that would have destroyed any other presidential candidate in the last 50 years. But not Hillary.

        At least Obama was a clean slate, so it was easier to excuse his adoring fans for applying their own interpretations of who or what he was/is. With Hillary we all know, except 40+% of the country is willing to completely ignore it. It is jaw-dropping.

        Trump’s a joke. Hillary is evil and half the country is happy to look the other way.

  26. I don’t see what’s so outrageous about that proposition. After all, David Duke has actually won a few elections. I’d say that makes him as legitimate a candidate as anyone, and probably more so than a few I could mention.

  27. David Duke running as a Republican…ah, yes, 90s nostalgia.

  28. I can’t wait for one of the Reason staff to justify his Hillary vote with: “all my life I have wanted a shuttered, post-menopausal vagina to be president”.

  29. “No major party should ever consider supporting a candidate with a long history of vile bigotry?even if the candidate had a shot at winning the race.”

    They already support candidates with a long history of war-mongering, could be a step up.

    1. Why the fuck not? I’d take a candidate with a long history of dog fighting or spouse beating. Those are faults that could land the candidate in jail, but they’re not going to have an effect outside that candidate’s personal circle. What could David Duke do that would give any legal effect to his vile bigotry?

      1. So you’re advocating for the candidacy of current and former NFL players to run for high office?

  30. If I had to install Duke in place of Clinton, I would. Considering the likely agenda, I think Duke would do much less damage than Clinton, especially since Duke is a nut.

  31. If Duke seeks the nomination, let him try.
    If he wins, let him run.
    If he gets elected, let him serve.
    If he breaks the law, impeach him.

  32. This article is absurd –

  33. Ok, this is my first comment here so go easy on me….I’m one of those “always been a Libertarian but always registered/voted Republican” peoole who is now ready to register/vote Libertarian. That said, this article seems to push the same basic concept that has frustrated me about Libertarian tickets in the past and today. “The other choices stink, so vote for us”. This as opposed to “Vote for us because we’re worthy of your vote regardless of other candidates.”. Otherwise, doesn’t this article hold true for our side – vote for anyone who isn’t Trump or Hillary? That’s not the sense I get here from comments I’ve read here, but it’s the narrative too often sold. Anyway, bottom line I’m glad to be part of this group that values our values above all.

  34. Hudson . true that Chad `s blurb is flabbergasting… last week I got a gorgeous Alfa Romeo after having made $5229 this last 5 weeks and-over, $10k this past-munth . it’s actualy my favourite work I have ever had . I started this three months/ago and immediately started bringin home at least $80, per-hour . pop over to this website .


  35. I’ve made $64,000 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student. Im using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money. It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it. Heres what I do,


  36. Your sophism hinges on one key element that you yourself couldn’t even state: David Duke would have to be the GOP nominee for President. Not “someone like Duke” which was as close as you bring yourself to actually proclaiming Duke the nominee in your hypothetical argument.

    Are we talking about Duke or someone like him? In your esoteric world, who among us could not be considered, in some form or another, someone like Duke?

  37. Nice and effective blog post. The content is too short but effective. I love the information you share here. Its an well written blog post by you. This is awesome blog post.
    Vashikaran mantra
    Girl Vashikaran By Hair

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.