Justin Amash

Could Justin Amash Cost Trump Michigan?

Trump beat Hillary Clinton by just 10,704 votes in the same election that the libertarian GOP congressman received 203,545

|

Donald Trump famously won the combined 56 electoral votes of Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan by a total of 77,744 in the popular vote. Had those quarter-percentage-point squeakers gone the other way in the three states, Hillary Clinton would have won the Electoral College in addition to the popular vote, by a score of 283 to 248. It's no wonder that the president's re-election campaign is focused foremost on, well, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan.

Enter fifth-term Michigan congressman Justin Amash (R-Grand Rapids). The self-described libertarian Republican has been openly weighing a presidential challenge under the banner of the Libertarian Party (which selects its nominee in May 2020), so his home-state media is starting to assess the potential impacts of such a run. Some initial headlines: "Amash could play 2020 spoiler in Michigan as Libertarian nominee," and "Amash's presidential decision could spell trouble for Trump in Michigan."

Here's how the math works. Trump won Michigan (and its 16 electors) by a margin of just 10,704 votes, or 47.5 percent to 47.27 percent, becoming the first Republican to win the Great Lakes State since George H.W. Bush in 1988. Libertarian nominee Gary Johnson in 2016 received 172,136 votes, or 3.59 percent. Amash in that same election won 203,545 votes in his district alone. (A district in which Amash's 22-point victory was considerably more impressive than Trump's 9.4-point edge over Clinton.)

"Tens of thousands of people in West Michigan have voted for Justin Amash. They don't just walk away from him suddenly," Lansing-based pollster Richard Czuba told the Detroit News. "That's not to say he'd get the same number of votes by any stretch, but it wouldn't take a lot of votes to siphon away if Michigan were a close race."

Bernie Porn, of the Lansing-based political polling firm EPIC-MRA, told Michigan Advance that "He could have a heck of a lot bigger impact on the outcome than Johnson in 2016."

Early polling has the president facing an uphill re-election slog in the Rust Belt. In a Michigan survey released a month ago, Emerson Polling had Trump losing in all five head-to-head matchups with selected Democrats, by between two and eight percentage points, including an additional two contests that threw in independent Howard Schultz (who, interestingly, has been pulling about equally from major-party candidates).

Amash told the Detroit News that he rejects the single-state spoiler frame.

"Who knows? Maybe he'd deny me Michigan. I don't know," the congressman said. "That kind of perception of third-party candidates and independent candidates is a problem….One of the reasons it's persisted as a problem is we haven't had strong candidates typically running third-party campaigns or independent campaigns. I really think if you have a strong candidate, that person can far exceed expectations."

If Amash decides to run, he'd have to give up his congressional seat—Michigan law forbids federal candidates to run for two different positions in the same election. Then again, his whole district might be redistricted out of existence after a 2020 Census that's expected to reduce the state's congressional delegation by one seat.

So will he run? Amash told the News that "'Considering' is too strong a word" to describe his deliberations, and also that "you also only run for things if you feel like there's a good possibility of winning." As for the comparatively marginal status of the party's ideology: "If you can get people to think about libertarianism as the philosophy of America — that it is just an appreciation for American principles of individualism and liberty and freedom — I think it's very accessible to a lot of people."

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 Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

138 responses to “Could Justin Amash Cost Trump Michigan?

  1. Amish got 20,000 votes. The margin in Michigan was 10,000 votes. To think Amish could cost Trump the state, you have have to assume that the electorate will be exactly the same in 2020 and that over half of the number people who voted for Amish to go to the House as a Republican would vote for him as a Libertarian for President and that he wouldn’t pull a single vote for the Democrat. Ah, no
    .

    1. *Amash

      I don’t know what Amish you are referring to

      1. You caught a spelling error. Well isn’t that special.

        1. It’s a pretty easy name to spell

          1. This is John we are talking about.

            1. Orthographical commissars, comrade Ivan. Off with them to the camps!

              1. John is as famous for his spelling fuck ups as you are for your love of white sheets with two little holes in them.

                1. The holes sometimes may need to be a little bigger – witness the scene in Django Unchained.

                  1. Is it against the rules for you to send your blood-splattered white sheets to a Chinese laundromat for cleaning?

                    1. Not if they use Calgon…

                    2. Is that where you send the sheets you use for your prepubescent victims Pedo Jeffy?

                    3. Ah, I see Pedo Jeffy has chosen to opine.

            2. Chip, John is car more intelligent and literate than you are. So I would watch it with that shit.

          2. It’s also pretty easy for autocorrect to override that correct spelling.

        2. You’re also off by an order of magnitude on Amash votes.

        3. Google paid for every week online work from home 8000 to 10000 dollars.i have received first month $24961 and $35274 in my last month paycheck from Google and i work 3 to 5 hours a day in my spare time easily from home. It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it..go to this site for more details…

          So I started ========>>>>>>>> http://Www.TheproCoin.CoM

    2. Or he got 203,545.

      And yet everyone hammered on the spelling of Amash.

      Ballotpedia

  2. Early polling has the president facing an uphill re-election slog in the Rust Belt. In a Michigan survey released a month ago, Emerson Polling had Trump losing in all five head-to-head matchups with selected Democrats, by between two and eight percentage points, including an additional two contests that threw in independent Howard Schultz (who, interestingly, has been pulling about equally from major-party candidates).

    Jesus fucking Christ do we have to go through this bullshit again? Are you just a slow learner Welch? After you were made to look like a complete fool in 2016, one would think that you would be a bit gun shy about taking polls seriously, especially polls of dubious provence conducted nearly two years out from the election. I know you desparately want the Democrat to win. And maybe they will. But, you should probably try and avoid letting your fervent wishes cloud your judgement this time around. Just saying.

    1. In order for Amash to run in the LP he has got to get a lot shittier on foreign policy. He fever dreamed pretty hard during the original onset of that Russia shamble (which won him praise from the conspiracists at Reason). But, now he’ll need to virtue signal about the importance of NATO; maybe praise mandatory vaccines; mumble some garbage about “obstruction of justice” while unironically discussing criminal justice reform. And for good measure he should probably voice support for a carbon tax.

      If Amash ran under his current policies, without consulting his funders, he would actually provide an alternative to the two parties and that is not what the LP under Sarwark is about.

      1. This was not meant to be a response to John. It was meant to be a joke.

        1. It is too true to be funny.

      2. Shills gotta shill. Those corporate donations don’t create themselves.

    2. Or it could be a deep libertarian conspiracy to get the Mexi-Ass-Weed bill passed by horse trading Amash staying out of the election. Just saying.

    3. Welch isn’t a Dem, he just wants a President to kowtow to NATO so a country with Italy’s GDP won’t try to send tanks into conquer The EU.

  3. Bernie Porn says he could have a lot bigger impact than Johnson. You can’t make this stuff up.

    1. Depends on who the Dems nominate, but I could see that. Johnson won a lot of disaffected people who didn’t want to vote Clinton or Trump. Johnson did do so well with people who lean Republican (Utah is the best example of this), but he did better with people who lean Democratic. Amash would do better with the people who lean Republican, I think.

      Preferably, he would wait it out in the House and then wait to be nominate as Secretary of State under President Paul

      1. Place like this always needs a quality straight man. Mad respect.

        1. Whoosh!

    2. Welllll …. some people are born to be whoooooshed.

  4. >>>”‘Considering’ is too strong a word” to describe his deliberations

    not even to “considering” yet and he’s taking Michigan …

  5. Bernie Porn,

    Sure. It’s Ron Jeremy wearing a Doc Brown wig. While getting blown he rants that the 1% in league with corparashuns are ensuring only the 1% will get facials unless we do something about it.

  6. >>>Bernie Porn

    come on.

    1. I thought Bernie Porn was Bernie waxing on about socialism while a naked babe with a full bush lays on the bed with her legs spread open, yelling at him to shut the fuck up and fuck her already or to get out.

      1. can’t unsee.

      2. ‘Bernie’ and ‘ waxing’ do not belong in the same sentence, dammit.

      3. That’s clearly a lie. There isn’t enough Viagra in the universe to prop up Bernie’s socialist penis.

    2. You don’t have to look far for Bernie Porn.

      A man goes home and masturbates his typical fantasy. A woman on her knees, a woman tied up, a woman abused.

      A woman enjoys intercourse with her man ? as she fantasizes being raped by 3 men simultaneously.

      The man and woman get dressed up on Sunday ? and go to Church, or maybe to their “revolutionary” political meeting.

  7. And howard schultz could draw 300,000 plus democratic votes in the same state. I am not a huge fan of DT, however, its become evident that Reason has TDS, in a very bad way.

    1. Welchie Boy would sacrifice both of his useless testicles in order to get another progressive like Obama in there again.

  8. He would be the first Palestinian presidential nominee, which will of course be ignored as it was when he was first elected to the House. To the corporate press Palestinian= Muslim. They just can’t fathom that actual diversity exists beyond their lily white urban enclave.

    1. Just curious, do you live in a diverse neighborhood?

      1. Depends on how you define it. If you mean people who all think the same thing, vote the same way, all went to college, but a token amount of them of a different skin color than no. If you mean real diversity then yes

        1. So you mean a bunch of people who think and vote the same (variations of lefty), didn’t go to college (something to be proud of there, I can hear them saying, “I went to the school of Hard Knocks”), but lot’s of hyphenated Americans…yes, that’s real diversity.

  9. “Bernie Porn”

    (shudders)

  10. Bernie Porn

    God this made me stop reading and vomit. Poor Bastard.

  11. If Amash does manage to flip Michigan to the Democrats, he will have functioned as the archetypical libertarian: claiming to believe in liberty while acting politically to move policy in the opposite direction.

    With friends like these…

    1. Well, arguably, Gary Johnson flipped Michigan to Trump…

      1. No. The Russians did it

        1. Fine. It was Gary Johnsonovich

          1. And you want to flip border states to the pedophiles, right Pedo Jeffy?

    2. Assuming that the Republican Party is more libertarian than is the Democratic Party is the work of an uninformed person, perhaps accompanied by shades of bigotry and backwardness.

      1. As is assuming the Democratic Party is more libertarian than the Republicans

        1. A genuine libertarian could be expected to possess roughly equal disdain for our political parties.

  12. Matt is still framing the question incorrectly. One non-passable libertarian-impersonator can cost another such impostor an entire state’s worth of votes by acting as the spoiler to undermine God’s Own Prohibitionists’ platform–except that there HAS to be a difference. Trump won the audition and is selling the GOP platform complete with Siegfried Line, bullying pregnant women, forcing workers to pee into prohibitionist Dixiecrat cups, bombing foreign soil, meddling abroad via entangling alliances and wrecking the fractional reserve economy via asset forfeiture. Amash is committed to this EXACT same platform, and is if anything even more superstitious than Trump. Michigan is 4th-ranked in LP leverage. Its electoral votes multiplied by LP votes cast there yield a spoiler leverage factor of 32. To change the laws, we need a viable Libertarian platform in Michigan–like the 2016 platform that favors freedom rather than the importation of infected, amok jihadists and starving fascist brainwashees. THAT threat will cause the looters to rewrite their platforms. Otherwise our spoiler votes cause them to lose jobs to the similar gang.

    1. FFS you’re a tedious, babbling bitch.

  13. Amash 2020!
    Paid for by Cuckservatives for Democratic Rule

    1. All that’s needed is huge walls, more trade wars, more paranoia, more xenophobia, and more mindless chest-thumping flag-waving patriotism, and we will finally arrive at Trumptopia!

      1. You’re just upset because he isn’t allowing foreign child predators in so you can watch them violently rape American children Pedo Jeffy.

    2. Trump still has 18 months to embrace technocratic central planning, woke identity politics, unlimited unskilled immigration, globalist-First foreign and military policy, food trucks, mislabeled ersatz meat and dairy, libertarian feminism , commonsense gun safety laws and properly taxed and regulated weed and sex work if he hopes to pickup the Reason endorsement and LP dupe-vote.

  14. Just remember that there is no limit to how bad a candidate the Democrats might nominate or to how incompetently they might campaign.

    1. So Vote Trump, right?

      I can only speak for myself, but I’m sure I’m not alone when I say that the scare tactics from Team Red just don’t work on me anymore. “OMG [insert Team Blue name here] is a socialist/communist/Marxist/America-hater/traitor! Vote Team Red to keep that horrible person out!” I’m sorry, but you’ve exhausted any possible persuasive ability on that level. So if you can’t persuade people to vote for Team Red by appealing to the positive qualities of Trump & co., then don’t even bother with trying the scare tactics. It won’t work.

      1. Team Red’s coaches and sportswriters are still all NeverTrump. Did you forget the Orange Man’s Republicanism was thoroughly and completely discredited and debunked back in 2016?

        1. In case you hadn’t noticed, Team Red is Trumpism now.

          1. “In case you hadn’t noticed, Team Red is Trumpism now.”

            In case you haven’t noticed:
            1) DeVos
            2) Gorsuch
            3) Kavanuagh
            4) Ajit Pai, end net price fixing
            5) Major reduction in the growth of regulations
            6) Dow +30%
            7) Unemployment at 3.8%
            8) The US Manufacturing Index soared to a 33 year high
            9) Got repeal of the national medical insurance mandate.
            10) Withdrawal from Paris climate agreement.
            11) Not sure about the tax reform; any “reform” that leaves me subisdizing Musk’s customers is not what I hoped for. Let Musk run a company for once.
            12) In the waning days of 2017, the Trump administration pulled its support for the $13 billion Hudson Tunnel project.
            13) More than 16,000 jobs have been cut from the federal leviathan
            14) MIGHT have a deal to de-nuke NK.
            And finally:
            15) Still making lefties steppin and fetchin like their pants is on fire and their asses are catchin’

            And keep on steppin and fetchin while you try to find some D who has a brain cell.

            1. Whenever I see anyone try to give the president credit for something like the unemployment rate or the DJIA index, I know that the person is just a shill. It was bullshit when lefties tried to do it for Obama, and it’s bullshit when you’re trying to do it for Trump.

              “Steppin and fetchin”. Classy! Oh but totally not racist.

              Why do you feel the need to shill for a POS like Trump? He doesn’t need your help. He has enough sycophants willing to carry his water for him without you, you know.

              1. chemjeff radical individualist|4.10.19 @ 10:38PM|#
                “Whenever I see anyone try to give the president credit for something like the unemployment rate or the DJIA index, I know that the person is just a shill. It was bullshit when lefties tried to do it for Obama, and it’s bullshit when you’re trying to do it for Trump.”

                Whenever I see some pathetic piece of shit trying to claim the person in question has no ability to affect the data, I immediately know that the person doing so os a fucking lefty ignoramus, fucking lefty ignoramus.
                ————————
                “”Steppin and fetchin”. Classy! Oh but totally not racist.”

                Stupid; and it came from this, you pathetic piece of shit:
                http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=952h-AJ3Bcg
                Go ahead, you fucking lefty ignoramus, find a reference to ‘race’ it there. Oh, and did I point out you’re a racist besides? If not: You’re a racist.
                —————————————
                “Why do you feel the need to shill for a POS like Trump? He doesn’t need your help. He has enough sycophants willing to carry his water for him without you, you know.”

                Why do you feel the need to prove you’re a fucking lefty ignoramus, you fucking lefty ignoramus? You have enough dimbulbs to carry your water while you prove yourself once again to be a fucking lefty ignoramus.

                1. Pedo,Jeffy is a pedo enthusiast too. He and PB probably fuck eachother while they watch kiddie porn. Like the shit PB linked here.

      2. “I can only speak for myself, but I’m sure I’m not alone when I say that the scare tactics from Team Red just don’t work on me anymore. “OMG [insert Team Blue name here] is a socialist/communist/Marxist/America-hater/traitor! Vote Team Red to keep that horrible person out!””

        Yep, lefties are quick to ignore reality when it interferes with the narrative.
        I’m not alone when I say they do exactly that, and you are full of shit.

        1. Yup, Democrats hate America, and Republicans are the True Patriots, and you’re not a Team Red shill, just a Concerned Libertarian Citizen. Got it!

          1. chemjeff radical individualist|4.10.19 @ 10:38PM|#
            “Yup, Democrats hate America, and Republicans are the True Patriots, and you’re not a Team Red shill, just a Concerned Libertarian Citizen. Got it!”

            Fucking lefty ignoramus seems to have missed an opportunity to address an issue.

      3. So Vote Trump, right?

        Uh…no, that wasn’t what I was getting at at all. I meant that no matter what happens with the GOP or third party candidates, the Democrats are quite capable of losing any election all on their own, through their own incompetence in the campaign, or by choosing an unelectable nominee.

      4. But Team Blue using the exact same tactics still works, right?

  15. Why would anyone but a conservative care?

    1. Ummmmm, left-libertarians like us should definitely take an interest in anything that helps the Democrats in 2020. We certainly don’t want Drumpf to have another 4 years to destroy the economy on Putin’s orders.

      #DrumpfRecession
      #SamsClubClosedABunchOfStores
      #UnbanPalinsButtplug

    2. Hey, Pedo Buttplug is back. He shouldn’t be, but he is.

      Reason doesn’t want you here, because you post child porn Pedo Buttplug. Why can’t you go back to some lefty site where that shit flies?

  16. To be honest this is one reason why I do hope that Democrats nominate a left-wing progressive. To demonstrate that Libertarians can be the sober choice, between the “free shit for everyone and who cares how much it costs” insanity of Democrats, and the “trade wars are easy to win, let’s put babies in cages” casual cruelty of Trumpist Republicans. I think a guy like Amash can convince people on the right who are appalled by Trumpism but don’t favor left-wing insanity, and people on the left who are appalled by the fiscal and social insanity of Sandersism but don’t favor right-wing insanity either, that sound principles of liberty and prudence are the best course of action. And it’s not like Amash is some nutbar dancing naked on stage or fucking whales, he’s already won elections and he knows what he is doing.

    1. So your best dig on Trump is that:
      a. he attempted to balance out the level of taxes and restrictions that other countries put on US goods, and
      b. he provided children brought to this country illegally by adults (maybe their parents, maybe a smuggler) with food, clothing and shelter while a longer term solution was developed.

      Ouch, that is a burn. Please link to your proposed solutions on both these issues, so we can all be impressed with the simple elegance of your brilliance.

      1. Pedo Jeffy is angry that the child traffickers were kept from the children they brought here. Maybe it delayed the d,divers of his pedo take out order.

  17. Will enough of Amish’s voters be able to reach the polls in their buggies?

  18. Since Democrats are objectively better than Republicans at advancing the libertarian agenda, Libertarian Party candidates should only run if they’re guaranteed to hurt the Republican candidate more.

  19. OT –

    Gay fortuneteller sues Virginia town for violating his religious freedom

    “The lawsuit alleges the town rejected Mullin’s application for a business license, telling him he must seek an exemption to the town’s zoning laws. City officials held a public hearing on the request and after a “raucous” meeting decided to deny the zoning amendment.

    “Those opposed to the exemption described tarot reading as “witchcraft” and would “open things up in this area to the demonic realm.” The ACLU says that by denying the application based off resident’s opposition to Mullin’s religion, they have effectively violated his First Amendment right to free speech and religious liberty.”

  20. Nancy Pelosi and Democrats Block Bill to Stop Infanticide For 32nd Time, Refuse Care for Babies Born Alive

    “H.R. 962, the Born Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, introduced by Rep. Ann Wagner (R-MO), ensures that a baby born alive after a failed or attempted abortion receives the same medical care as any other newborn. It would also penalize doctors who allow such infants to die or who intentionally kill a newborn following a failed abortion.

    “Every single Democrat in the Senate who is running for president voted against a bill that would stop infanticide and provide medical care and treatment for babies who are born alive after botched abortions. That includes Bernie Sanders, Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, Elizabeth Warren, Kirsten Gillibrand, and Amy Klobuchar.”

    1. So tell us, Eddy, when does a collection of cells become human?

      1. According to this bill, at some point at or before birth.

        1. Anyway, it’s not my well-known personhood-begins-at-conception view which raises slippery-slope issues in this case, it’s the question of whether Dems want to protect personhood rights for living human beings who are actually born. Can we at least agree that personhood begins at some form before that?

          1. “Can we at least agree that personhood begins at some form before that?”
            So tell us, Eddy, when does a collection of cells become human?

            1. Conception, as subtly hinted in my last response:

              “Anyway, it’s not my well-known personhood-begins-at-conception view which raises slippery-slope issues in this case, it’s the question of whether Dems want to protect personhood rights for living human beings who are actually born.”

              1. Eddy|4.10.19 @ 11:00PM|#
                “Conception, as subtly hinted in my last response:”
                Fail. That’s all: Fail.
                You might just as well claim a sperm is a ‘human’; you have proven yourself not worthy of discussion regarding the issue.
                Get lost.

                1. And therefore…a baby who is born alive after an unsuccessful abortion should be left to die?

                  What have you proved?

                  1. A question for you: At what point, exactly, should the government recognize a living human being as a “life worthy of life”?

                    1. I answered your question twice, you’re not answering my question at all. 🙁

                    2. Eddy|4.10.19 @ 11:34PM|#
                      “I answered your question twice, you’re not answering my question at all. :(”

                      No, you offered a strawman and then asked for and got a response.
                      I have a hint: There are many of us who do not give a shit regarding your superstition. You might try thinking in ways where your superstition is not included. It is liberating, but I know that superstitiouionists are threatened by dealing with reality.
                      Otherwise, you are but one more hoping that Santa Claus really does bring your gifts.

                    3. Eddy|4.10.19 @ 11:21PM|#
                      “A question for you: At what point, exactly, should the government recognize a living human being as a “life worthy of life”?”

                      I’m not religious, so absolute answers are not my specialty. But any claim that ‘at conception’ = human life is religious. You are welcome to your superstition; I don’t care, but you are not welcome to use your mythology to direct government activities; see A-1.
                      Let’s put it another way: YOU have to prove your superstition is sufficient to make that claim; you have not done do. Fail.

                    4. “absolute answers are not my specialty”

                      Ha ha, sevo, I bet you couldn’t say that with a straight face.

                      Anyway I haven’t been to church in months, but I still don’t see what basis you have for saying that a living human being is a life unworthy of life.

                    5. “Ha ha, sevo, I bet you couldn’t say that with a straight face.”
                      Ha ha Eddy, I’m sure you had something in mind that got lost before you posted.

                      “Anyway I haven’t been to church in months, but I still don’t see what basis you have for saying that a living human being is a life unworthy of life.”
                      So you’re a failed superstitionist and therefore you superstition should still trump A-1?
                      Fail once more

                    6. My point was hearing the phrase “absolute answers are not my specialty” from you – and I don’t think I’m the only one who would consider it amusing.

                      You’re someone who states, as if authoritatively defining a dogma, that the First Amendment protects abortionists.

                      But absolute answers are not your specialty. Heavens, no!

                    7. That’s one thing about the devotees of the superstition of abortion – they can’t seem to agree whether their superstitious practices are protected by the 1st Amendment, by due process, by equal protection, or by the 9th Amendment. But they know abortion must be protected *somewhere* in the Constitution!

                    8. The prochoice constitutional scholar and jurist Laurence Tribe, said in his pro-abortion book, *Abortion: The Clash of Absolutes* (New York: Norton, 1992), p. 116:

                      “But as a matter of constitutional law, a question such as this, having an irreducibly moral dimension, cannon properly be kept out of the political realm merely because many religions and organized religious groups inevitably take strong positions on it….The participation of religious groups in political dialogue has never been constitutional anathema in the United States. Quite the contrary.”

                    9. When it achieves sentience, it’s a human life. That’s a scientific standard, and consistent.

    2. So I guess that means Democrats are pro-baby-murder now. Right?
      Oh no wait, Republicans are just using the abortion issue as a wedge issue. They’re just using babies as a way to score points against Democrats.
      So which should we believe?

      1. Democrats want to kill babies
      2. Republicans cynically use abortion as a wedge issue against Democrats

      Of course, the answer is #1!

      1. The answer is 1 *and* 2. Which is worse, killing babies or defeating Democrats at the polls?

        1. Perhaps you think it was mean and cynical for Republicans to force Dems to vote on the Green New Deal.

        2. No, you clearly believe the answer is only #1. Because if you thought the answer really was #2, you would understand why Democrats don’t play into the cynical games and traps that Republicans set for them when it comes to issues like abortion.

          Which is JUST LIKE the case when Democrats try to set traps for Republicans on issues like gun control, by the way. “Oh, it’s just common sense, it will save lives!” Oh bullshit. It’s just to try to get Republicans to vote in opposition to the desires of the NRA. Same deal here.

          I personally don’t favor abortion, but I also don’t see much to be gained by trying to demonize those who are in favor of abortion as people of ill will who have murderous intent to kill babies. That does no good, and only serves to poison the well.

          1. Who cares what Dems’ personal feelz are like? This is a good bill and they oppose it.

            Of curse I believe Republicans are cynical manipulators. They’re not the prolifers, they’re just the inheritors of prolife votes after the Dems pushed the prolifers out of their party.

            1. Of curse I believe Republicans are cynical manipulators.

              So you want to reward this cynical manipulation?

              1. Dear Lord, you sound like a Dunning School historian deploring the evil political motives of Republicans during Reconstruction.

                Is it not enough that politicians vote the right way? Must we also insist that they have good feelz while they do it?

                1. Is it not enough that politicians vote the right way?

                  1. No, it’s not enough. Intentions matter. It is more than just mere “feelz”. If you endorse one tribe using cynical tactics to advance an agenda that has nothing to do with abortion or babies itself, and is only about trying to defeat the other tribe, IN THE NAME OF trying to save babies, then that is what you are rewarding and will get more of unless people of good will call out those types of tactics.

                  2. It’s not even clear that trying to micromanage doctors’ professional judgment at the federal level is “the right way”.

                  1. You poor dear, you probably think Republicans voted against slavery because of a pure, disinterested affection for the slaves. The Democrats tried to call out their political motivations, but as even Hollywood knows, the Democrats deserved to lose that one.

                    “2. It’s not even clear that trying to micromanage doctors’ professional judgment at the federal level is “the right way”.”

                    So just to be clear, if a baby is born alive after an unsuccessful abortion, a doctor should be allowed to exercise the “professional judgment” of letting the baby die?

                    1. I think if there are any problems with an abortion, that these things should be regulated at the local level, that the feds should have next to no role in any of this, and that you are buying into the cynical machinations of Republicans because it hurts Democrats, not because you think it would actually save any babies.

                    2. You may have missed the federalization of the abortion issue, which was not initiated by the prolife side.

                      I don’t really care who protects babies who survive abortion, so long as someone protects them. I wouldn’t bother me in the least of Democrats came to their senses and decided to support this bill, quite the contrary – nobody is forcing them to vote “no.”

                2. And with that I am going to bed, so you get the last word.

      2. Those are not mutually exclusive possibilities.

      3. You’re simply feeding into the wedge issue strategy. Its also worth nothing you can apply this formula to almost any current hot-button topic (gun control, immigration, healthcare, etc) Which is probably why the candidates keep making them the hot-button topics

        1. If it weren’t for the parties trying to embarrass each other, we wouldn’t have substantive votes on important issues in Congress.

      4. Then there is the Pedo Jeffy no borders policy of importing child predators so as to increase the incidence of violent child rape in America.

  21. “Could Justin Amash Cost Trump Michigan?”

    Well, this popped up on YT:
    “Nancy Pelosi “guarantees” Donald Trump will fail – Recode Decode”
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39ASAfmtjxc

  22. I’m just here for the Bernie Porn.

  23. “Donald Trump famously won the combined 56 electoral votes of Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan by a total of 77,744 in the popular vote.”

    The blue collar vote in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan has done extremely well over the last two years, since Trump took office. Unemployment is at historic lows. The work participation rate is way up. Wages are rising faster than inflation.

    Given those facts, it would be a mistake to assume that Trump will only do as well in 2020 as he did in 2016. Oh, and given the election of a conservative state supreme court justice in Wisconsin the other week, the Democrats’ agenda doesn’t seem to be playing well with the rust belt demographic that broke for Trump in 2016.

    The only thing that might lose the rust belt for Trump in 2020 at this point is if a recession were to materialize.

    1. “The only thing that might lose the rust belt for Trump in 2020 at this point is if a recession were to materialize.”

      I think that or starting an unpopular war are the only things that would do it right now. The former seems well within the realms of possibility on a cyclical basis even if the signals are not present.
      To be honest, I much prefer Trump to any of the current crop of contenders. This is despite him being 3rd or 4th to last for me in the primaries of 2016 (depending on how many dem and 3rd party candidates you count)

    2. “The only thing that might lose the rust belt for Trump in 2020 at this point is if a recession were to materialize.”

      I think you’re right on the money. Doubtful any of the dem candidates on their SJW apology tour and socialist spending wish spree will be convincing blue collar rust belt voters. And even if they end up with someone not completely insane, the primary process is going to put a bad taste in those voters’ mouths.

      I think that’s why he has been so keen on keeping interest rates low and putting pressure on the fed. As long as the bull market continues, economy is up, unemployment low, the rust belt will be unlikely to want to change course for an insane leftist, might even go more for Trump than last time. But if the bull ends and we spend the first 1/2 to 3/4 of 2020 in a recession, people are more likely to consider a change.

  24. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go to tech tab for work detail.\

    >>>>>>>>>> http://www.GeoSalary.com

  25. I know Reason likes to make the Libertarian party seem more important than it is, but only protest voters go third party and they typically do it during throwaway elections where they already know their primary party candidate has lost (I voted for Johnson in 2012, Romneybot didn’t stand a chance). Even meme-tier registered Libertarians aren’t suicidal enough to vote for a Trump loss and the moral handwashing that typically happens with abstainers is top tier mental gymnastics. You won’t vote for him because he’s not very Libertarian, but you’ll be morally superior by helping literal Socialists win?

    1. Unless you live in a swing state isn’t even election a throwaway election?

      1. Not in the slightest. You’re showing support and promoting an agenda. Staying home because your preferred candidate is guaranteed to lose is absurd. Voting for GJ helped advance the Libertarian agenda and was the first salvo in purging neocons from the party. Look at how Ron Paul was treated in the 2008 primaries compared to Trump in 2016. Just a decade ago, neocons laughed at intellectual diversity within the party. Now the party is ruled by outsiders after the boomers woke up and realized how failed neocon candidates were just hawkish Democrats who didn’t really care for limited government. Not that Trump is a hero of individual liberty, but he’s a step in the right direction.

  26. his whole district might be redistricted out of existence after a 2020 Census that’s expected to reduce the state’s congressional delegation by one seat.

    I’d have more respect for Amash if he introduced legislation to update congressional apportionment. It is obscene that we are still apportioning congressional seats under the Reapportionment Act of 1929 which fixed the total number of seats in the House at 435 (which was itself by then simply the same number used in the Apportionment Act of 1911).

    A lot of things have changed since 1911. Women got the vote. Teens got the vote. Blacks actually got the vote. The population increased by 300%. In effect the number of voters has increased by about 9x. The only purpose of keeping the House fixed is to minimize actual representation of citizens in order to at some point eliminate it in favor of incumbent pols/parties.

    We now have the second WORST representation in the world. Only India is worse – and their assembly size is fixed in their constitution which is obviously tougher to fix than via mere legislation. What a decline for the country that introduced non-corrupted representation as the implementation of consent of the governed to the world

    1. Not to mention that the number of taxpayers has increased by close to infinity since 1911 with FICA and income taxes now being taken. What happened to no taxation without representation?

      Or to mention that federal spending of the executive branch has increased from $900 million in 1911 (far lower than the market cap of US Steel then) overseen by 435 elected critters – to $4.3 trillion now overseen by the same number. What happened to separation of powers and/or checks and balances via the power of the purse?

    2. What makes you think more representatives would make for better government? Not challenging, just asking.

      1. MUCH tougher for committee and party bosses to control. That difficulty probably increases by the square of the legislature size

        MUCH more expensive for big donors to buy critters – more critters to buy, more critters who are independent from the leadership, and smaller districts also equals different methods of getting elected – both grassroots/retail and topdown mass ads/polling/issues. Only the latter can really be controlled by big donors.

        More likely that a critter can make his case by promising oversight of money spent rather than just yet more legislation thrown out there. Totally different dynamic that can actually allow room for ‘libertarian’ or at least good govt types.

        Different agendas can be introduced directly into the House by merely convincing say 100k local voters that it’s important rather than an entire national political party.

        Actual experience at the state level. Even just among big states – PA and GA are far better run than CA. Among small states – NH is far better run than DE. And generally small states (which also have smaller districts – some of which is natural) are far better run than big states.

      2. Oh – and currently the House is actually ‘run’ as much by 20,000 unelected staffers as it is by the 435 elected critters. Expanding the number of elected critters provides far more direct accountability to voters and allows for a significant reduction in the number of unaccountable and highly corruptible staffers (who are more loyal to an inside-beltway career)

  27. Justin Amash is from a district that has elected a Republican since 1912.

    He’s not the darling of his district.

    He’s the guy with the ‘R’.

    Has ALL journalism given up journalism in favor of TDS? I found that in seconds.

  28. Matt correctly notes that President Trump won Michigan by a very small amount and then assumes that small amount will be there for next election. No matter who the Democrats nominate the Party is not likely to ignore the mid-west again. So I don’t think Justin Amash will likely shift the Michigan outcome. That said he should follow his heart and head and run for the Libertarian nomination if he thinks that right.

    1. He’s wrong. It won’t be a small amount this time. It will be a large amount. Some say it might even be yuuuuge.

  29. “Spoiler” for whom? Give me a Libertarian that can win! If he just a spoiler so some socialist can raise my taxes and fine me for not getting an OBAMACARE compliant insurance then COUNT ME OUT (I voted Lib since 92). I’m no fan of Trumps style but, My taxes are much lower (small business owner here), I don’t have to pay the Obamacare penalty? We have an AG that at least is talking about easing the fed vice on marijuana and I believe the wars in the Mideast would not have been winding down under a President Clinton. Is Donald Trump a big windbag? Yes !!!! Am I better off than I was two years ago? YES!!!! Give me a Libertarian that can win I’m tired of just Showing.

  30. What a fucked-up thread == glad I didn’t post to it

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.