Reason.com - Free Minds and Free Markets
Reason logo Reason logo
  • Latest
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Archives
    • Subscribe
    • Crossword
  • Video
  • Podcasts
    • All Shows
    • The Reason Roundtable
    • The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie
    • The Soho Forum Debates
    • Just Asking Questions
    • The Best of Reason Magazine
    • Why We Can't Have Nice Things
  • Volokh
  • Newsletters
  • Donate
    • Donate Online
    • Donate Crypto
    • Ways To Give To Reason Foundation
    • Torchbearer Society
    • Planned Giving
  • Subscribe
    • Reason Plus Subscription
    • Print Subscription
    • Gift Subscriptions
    • Subscriber Support

Login Form

Create new account
Forgot password

Election 2020

Larry Hogan Out, John Kasich Half-Out, Bill Weld Talking Abortion with Bill Maher

The #NeverTrump primary challenge to the president is nearly DOA.

Matt Welch | 6.1.2019 9:07 PM

Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests
LarryHogan | Nikolas Hample/Sipa USA/Newscom
(Nikolas Hample/Sipa USA/Newscom)

"I'm not going to be a candidate for president in 2020," Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan tells The Washington Post in an interview published Saturday afternoon.

Thus ends what was for months the Great #NeverTrump Primary Hope, in the form of a medium-sized blue state's locally popular, nationally unknown purple governor. Jeb Bush had vouched for him; Jerry Taylor, president of the ex-libertarian Niskanen Center, had dedicated "every fiber" of his "being" toward convincing Hogan to run. But in the end the math was just too cruel: The incumbent president has a 90 percent job-approval rating among Republicans, and even in Maryland polling showed Hogan trailing in a head-to-head matchup, 68 percent to 24 percent.

"There was less of a demand out there in a Republican primary for the kind of thing we're talking about right now," Hogan says to the Post. "The president has a pretty solid lock on Republican primary voters."

The news came one day after the anti-Trump Republicans' other non–Bill Weld presidential wannabe, Ohio governor turned CNN commentator John Kasich, told his employer that there's "no path right now for me. I don't see a way to get there. Ninety percent of the Republican Party supports him….There is not a path. There's not the support for that. So maybe somebody wants to run and make a statement, and that's fine. But I've never gotten involved in a political race where I didn't think I could win. And right now, there's no path." (True to form, Kasich later tweet-clarified "all of my options are on the table," thus maintaining at least some thin reed for John Weaver to fundraise from.)

As ever, but even more so, that leaves Bill Weld all alone in the bug-on-Trump's-windshield field. Would-be #NeverTrump backers like Bill Kristol are running out of warm bodies.

the host list for a reception for Bill Weld in DC next month. Names of Bill Kristol and Trevor Potter jump out. pic.twitter.com/61MKLOjI4W

— David Weigel (@daveweigel) May 30, 2019

So what's Weld been doing to woo Republicans? Writing a USA Today column in favor of abortion rights and going on HBO's Real Time with Bill Maher to talk up "gender equality" and assert that if Trump loses he probably would not leave office "voluntarily." You can watch the latter performance, from Friday night—which includes Weld's comments on why he isn't running for the Libertarian nomination—below:

In nine national head-to-head polls since mid-February, Weld is trailing Trump (and consistently so) by an average of  70 percentage points. In three polls of New Hampshire, where Weld is pinning his hopes, he trails by an average of 64.

When I asked the former Massachusetts governor five weeks ago whether he's running as "kind of an insurance policy" in case something goes wrong with the president, here is how he answered:

No. Not really. I mean, as you know, I'm spending a lot of time in New Hampshire, that's my kind of territory. You've got to win the voters over in New Hampshire one at a time. They don't really think they've met you, until they've shaken your hand three times. I don't think that the president parachuting in that the eleventh hour to do two rallies, never meet people in their houses or on the street is going to work in that particular state. That's an influential state….

Ten months is a long time in national politics. I've seen what can happen in the New Hampshire primary. Things can change very quickly at the end. I think the president ignores that, at his peril, frankly.

All has been predicted by Reason TV's 2020 Presidential Campaign Blowout:

Start your day with Reason. Get a daily brief of the most important stories and trends every weekday morning when you subscribe to Reason Roundup.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

NEXT: Brickbats: June 2019

Matt Welch is an editor at large at Reason.

Election 2020Larry HoganJohn KasichBill WeldRepublican Party
Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

Hide Comments (76)

Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments 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 and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.

  1. Fist of Etiquette   6 years ago

    ...assert that if Trump loses he probably would not leave office "voluntarily."

    If you're in a race solely to make a statement, a wild conspiracy is probably not the statement you want to make.

    1. crufus   6 years ago

      I have no doubt that Trump will assert massive voter fraud if he loses the election. He did it in 2016 when he won, so why would he hesitate to do that now. That would be his go to excuse to try to invalidate the election or to simply declare that he won.

      1. SIV   6 years ago

        You mean Stacy Abrams.

        1. oneill39   6 years ago

          she won?

      2. Brian   6 years ago

        Maybe he’ll declare himself the “real” winner despite the constitution. Or beg the electoral college to see things his way and vote for him. Something vastly, like that.

      3. Agammamon   6 years ago

        I think you're confused - Trump is the orange one.

      4. Last of the Shitlords   6 years ago

        Oh bullshit, so tired of these unsupported nonsensical claims. According to people like you back in 2016, Trump was going to declare himself dictator or some such crap.

      5. Fancylad   6 years ago

        To be fair you Yanks have had massive voter fraud in every election. From Tammany Hall, to the Solid South to the Chicago Machine and the Cook County Democratic Party, to the recent convictions in East Saint Louis for vote buying with cigarettes and beer, the Democrats are a force.

        The Republicans would also probably be just as bad if they weren't so inept and if they knew the media would be complicit like they are with the Dems.

      6. Gregdn   6 years ago

        Gee, we've heard stuff like this before: "Trump Won't Obey a Court Order"..."Trump is going to declare Martial Law and suspend the 2018 Midterms"
        I don't care for the man, but spout crazy theories doesn't help the situation.

      7. Last of the Shitlords   6 years ago

        Except Trump was right. Democrats always engage in rampant voter fraud. Including voting in multiple states, illegal alien voters, the GY vote, registering cartoon characters to vote (see ACORN), etc..

        Why would 2016 have been any different?

    2. Matthew Chalice   6 years ago

      Weld is desperate to win over the crew over at The Bulwark, not to mention folks like Molly Jong-Fast, Marcy Wheeler, and other Resistance twits.

      1. Matthew Chalice   6 years ago

        *win over the crew at The Bulwark

    3. tlapp   6 years ago

      Sounds like he wants to set up a Hilary type excuse when he loses. Seems more like Weld desperate to be relevant tried to be a liberatarian, now a republican. He is just politics as usual, the establishment status quo.

  2. Entropic Principle   6 years ago

    Insurance policy? Pence may not be as popular as Trump be he is far more well known than Weld.

  3. Hattori Hanzo   6 years ago

    A sitting president with majority approval within his party is largely uncontested? Shocker!

    Who cares? Weld still isn't libertarian leaning. Reason is getting really pathetic trying to peddle GOP Lite.

    1. buybuydandavis   6 years ago

      Reason is much like #NeverTrump, cast adrift on the sea of irrelevance by the political realignment of Globalists on the Left, Nationalists on the Right.

      Nick made Open Borders Uber Alles Reason’s official “core value”:
      "In the 21st century, libertarians are going to have make common cause with the globalists of all parties, with the people whose core value is the right of individuals to move freely around the planet. "

      Nick's core value is Invasion USA. That's why he's been busy fellating postmodernism and Marxism lately.

      That's the trade off he's willing to make. That's the tradeoff globalists *have* to make if they want to remain politically relevant.

      The Right is nationalist. The Left is all the evil of the Left rolled up into one package, every kind of identitarian hatred coupled with starvation economics. But they're globalists, and if that's your "core value", then they're the horse for you.

      1. loveconstitution1789   6 years ago

        +1000

      2. chemjeff radical individualist   6 years ago

        Fortunately, there are more than just two tribes in the world.

        There is no inherent reason why anyone who supports individual liberty, including the liberty to move freely, has to get in bed with either the nationalist collectivists of the right, or the socialist collectivists of the left.

        1. buybuydandavis   6 years ago

          "There's no reason not to be electorally irrelevant! Politics is about moral preening, not electoral coalitions!"

          1. chemjeff radical individualist   6 years ago

            You should be happy that libertarians aren't endorsing either of the two major tribes. Because, according to you, if libertarians were forced to choose between Team Red and Team Blue, they'd choose the globalist Team Blue and work against your interests on Team Red. Why you would want to force this false dichotomy on libertarians is puzzling.

        2. Azathoth!!   6 years ago

          There are those who support the rights of the individual, and those who would take away those rights

          That's 2

          Everything else is window dressing.

      3. loveconstitution1789   6 years ago

        Poor Chemjeff and his inability to understand that some who want voluntary association under the Constitutional Democratic Republic want, choose this form of government and give up some rights voluntarily for the Common Defense or nation and those individual rights we choose to keep our own.

  4. Eddy   6 years ago

    William Weld is related to Theodore Dwight Weld, the Massachusetts abolitionist. (See Wikipedia, "Weld family").

    Thedore Dwight Weld was a seminary student where he defied the school administration for the sake of being able to promote abolitionism. In addition to his most famous work, *American Slavery As It Is* (providing much of the documentation which Stowe used in Uncle Tom's Cabin), Theodore wrote a book saying the Bible was against slavery:

    https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Bible_Against_Slavery

    Or as his degenerate descendant William might put it, Theodore tried to impose his divisive religious views by force.

    From Theodore to William - "Look here, upon this picture, and on this!"

    1. Ray McKigney   6 years ago

      Or as his degenerate descendant William might put it, Theodore tried to impose his divisive religious views by force.

      Stupid abolitionists and their sky fairy!

    2. Nemo Aequalis   6 years ago

      Thedore Dwight Weld was a seminary student where he defied the school administration for the sake of being able to promote abolitionism.

      As it's early and I'm not wearing my glasses, at first glance I read that as "promote alcoholism". Which, given one look at his descendant, would have been an entirely believable statement.

      1. Eddy   6 years ago

        I don't know if William is directly descended from Theodore, but they have common Weld ancestors. Probably the Mayflower or something.

  5. mlcorcoran   6 years ago

    Wait...

    the list of guests on the "bipartisan invitation" to meet Bill Weld includes Diana Prince?

    Either someone is trolling Gov. Weld, or Wonder Woman herself is taking a respite from the pages of DC Comics to muster support for the primary challenge against President Donald "Lex Luthor But Dumber" Trump

    1. Last of the Shitlords   6 years ago

      To be fair, how many other billionaires can manipulate kryptonite and build a battle suit capable of facing up to Superman?

  6. Ben_   6 years ago

    Narcissism hardest hit.

  7. Rich   6 years ago

    Kasich later tweet-clarified "all of my options are on the table,"

    and subsequently further clarified "and none of my non-options is off the table."

    1. Jerryskids   6 years ago

      #Biden-Kasich 2020

      1. Last of the Shitlords   6 years ago

        AKA Grumpy Old Men.

        1. loveconstitution1789   6 years ago

          #Bernie-Hillary 2020

          AKA Grumpier Old Men.

          1. Last of the Shitlords   6 years ago

            Touché.

  8. CE   6 years ago

    Let's see Trump's approval rating when his ill advised trade war with everybody tanks the economy he always brags about. I'd vote for Weld in the primary.

    1. buybuydandavis   6 years ago

      The #HateAmericaFirst crowd prays for a Depression in hopes of the Left ascending back to power in the ruins of America.

      1. loveconstitution1789   6 years ago

        +1000

        A normal market correction will of course be blamed on Trump, while the media is loathe to acknowledge that the market is doing better in no small part because Trump Era tax breaks and lowering of regulations.

      2. chemjeff radical individualist   6 years ago

        The #HateAmericaFirst crowd prays for a Depression

        Why are you praying for a Depression, buybuy?

    2. Blowhard Woodchip   6 years ago

      POO's* overall "approval" rating limps along at a historically low 40% over the duration of his regime, buoyed only by a surging economy he inherited from his predecessor. When the POO really hits the fan, that bloated orange blob will crash and burn like the Hindenburg.
      https://youtu.be/CgWHbpMVQ1U

      *President Orange Obstruction

      1. damikesc   6 years ago

        As a hint, if you have to explain your childish nickname every time you write it, it's not a very good one.

    3. loveconstitution1789   6 years ago

      #MAGA!

      1. Last of the Shitlords   6 years ago

        Is Blowhard the kiddie raper’s new sock?

  9. Fancylad   6 years ago

    Isn't talking with Maher on abortion like chatting with Lord Haw-haw on the Final Solution?

    1. Last of the Shitlords   6 years ago

      Maher pretty much despises marriage, families, and children in particular. His whole universe is an upscale cocktail party failed with snarky self styled elitist progressives.

  10. BlueStarDragon   6 years ago

    I'm just glad to see Weld gone away from the Libertarian party. We are supposed to have Libertarians running after all. Not just any person with whatever political beliefs, who can not get nominated in their party coming to the LP, Otherwise what is the point of having the Libertarian party.

    1. buybuydandavis   6 years ago

      "I’m just glad to see Weld gone away from the Libertarian party. "

      Why would anyone in the Republican Party be happy to support the carpet bagger returned from abject failure?

      Just another Egg McMuffin candidate for the last dozen #NeverTrumpers who miss The Weekly Standard but can't give up their moral preening as "Republicans".

      1. loveconstitution1789   6 years ago

        +100

  11. Blowhard Woodchip   6 years ago

    The incumbent president has a 90 percent job-approval rating among Republicans...

    ...and a 101% approval rating from far-right Republican xenophobes pretending to be libertarians. Meanwhile:

    Pentagon Bitch-Slaps POO
    SEOUL, South Korea — The Pentagon has told the White House to stop politicizing the military, amid a furor over a Trump administration order to have the Navy ship named for the late Sen. John McCain hidden from view during a presidential visit.

    A defense official said Acting Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan is also considering sending out formal guidance to military units in order to avoid similar problems in the future.

    Shanahan, who was traveling to South Korea on Sunday, confirmed details about a Navy email that said the White House military office wanted the USS John McCain kept “out of sight” when President Donald Trump visited Japan about a week ago. The internal Navy email came to light last week, triggering a storm of outrage.

    Fake news. Total exoneration. Witch hunt. MAGA
    https://nypost.com/2019/06/02/pentagon-tells-white-house-to-stop-politicizing-military/

  12. Blowhard Woodchip   6 years ago

    Far-Right Propaganda Troll Behind "Drunk Pelosi" Video Outed

    OK, fess up -- which of you fellas is Shawn Brooks?
    https://www.thedailybeast.com/we-found-shawn-brooks-the-guy-behind-the-viral-drunk-pelosi-video

    1. Red Rocks White Privilege   6 years ago

      Great video--hopefully more to come in the future.

      1. Last of the Shitlords   6 years ago

        Rocks, since this guy is almost certainly Buttplug, I would not click on his links. They are as likely to be child porn as they are what he claims.

        1. Blowhard Woodchip   6 years ago

          Yup, The Daily Beast is a porn site. Ya' got me there, shit-for-brains.

          1. Last of the Shitlords   6 years ago

            Given what a sick pedophile you are, one can never tell what you will post. Which is why Reason banned you and scrubbed your posts.

    2. Last of the Shitlords   6 years ago

      I am Shawn Brooks!

  13. Ray McKigney   6 years ago

    The #NeverTrump primary challenge to the president is nearly DOA.

    Surprising absolutely no one.

    1. Blowhard Woodchip   6 years ago

      "The emperor has no clothes, but damned if I'll mention it!"

      --CYA Republicans

    2. loveconstitution1789   6 years ago

      Exactly Ray McKigney

    3. Nardz   6 years ago

      Oh, I'm not so sure, Ray.
      Bubble boys and broads, like Welch and his progressive y*uppie ilk, really think they know the "common" man's perspective. I think some are genuinely surprised that more than 10% of Americans can accept a boorish outsider leading the country.
      Welch, bill Kristol, Matt Yglesias - serious "thinkers"

      1. Last of the Shitlords   6 years ago

        Trump is blunt. Which is refreshing co pared to most elected officials that give a five minute response to ‘you want fires with that?’. He’s also a doer. People like that too. If most politicians weren’t such awful weasels, Trump would not be necessary.

  14. Aloysious   6 years ago

    A Weigal-tweet?

    Matt, your depravity knows no bounds.

  15. Ken Shultz   6 years ago

    I don't think it's a mistake to suspect that the major forces that stop other people from a supporting a Republican alternative to Trump are the same forces that make me reluctant to support a challenger. In this case, the question isn't even just whether the Republican candidate in question represents my thinking so much as how badly the Democrat alternative violates everything I care about.

    Duverger's law is a guide to how voters think when confronted with choices like this in single member districts. My primary concern as a libertarian capitalist within single member districts is preventing someone who supports the Green New Deal and Medicare for All from taking the White House.

    If vocally criticizing Trump on immigration and trade while voting to support him in the election will let me leverage the support of people who like Trump's policies on immigration and trade to defeat the Green New Deal and Medicare for All, then that's what I'll do.

    If the threat of the Green New Deal and Medicare for All weren't so serious, I'd be more willing to support Republican alternatives to Trump, but supporting a Republican challenger to go after Trump--because he'll alienate anti-immigration and anti-free trade supporters in the Republican party--will only succeed in fracturing support for the opponent of the Green New Deal and Medicare for All.

    So, yeah, people are making a strategic decision within the context of single member districts, and that's what single member districts are supposed to make people do.

    Give the Democrats a trouncing because of the Green New Deal and Medicare for All, this time, and maybe next time they'll abandon that losing strategy and go pro-free trade like Bill Clinton. Then I can go back to doing my patriotic duty by refusing to participate in the election, which usually only helps legitimize the awful shit the next president of either party will wants to do.

    I once voted for George W. Bush because he promised to privatize socials security and replace welfare with private charity. Wow, what a libertarian president he'll turn out to be!

    How embarrassing.

  16. chemjeff radical individualist   6 years ago

    I wouldn't vote for Trump or Weld, so it makes little difference to me anyway.

    1. Ken Shultz   6 years ago

      Yeah, we already knew you were a progressive.

      1. loveconstitution1789   6 years ago

        Ken, nails it...again!

      2. chemjeff radical individualist   6 years ago

        Even if I was a progressive. So what?
        Does progressive mean "evil" now?

        1. Ken Shultz   6 years ago

          Progressives willfully ignore the important differences between the private sphere and the public sphere, individual rights and group membership, legal rights and the real thing, etc. These differences are crucial to the functioning of an ethical and free society, and willfully ignoring those differences and infecting the general population with that specific form of stupidity is among the bigger reasons why progressives are America's most horrible people.

          But that wan't why I brought it up. I just wanted to mention that by telling us that you were a progressive, you weren't telling us anything we didn't already know.

          1. chemjeff radical individualist   6 years ago

            "Progressives willfully ignore the important differences between the private sphere and the public sphere, individual rights and group membership, legal rights and the real thing,"

            So progressives are ~99% of the population?

            1. Ken Shultz   6 years ago

              Actually, respecting other people's agency is something most people do. It's not only difference between right and wrong, it's also the definition of crime. Rape, theft, etc. are both crimes and unethical because the victim's consent was never obtained and the duty to respect it was completely ignored.

              No, being a progressive is all about using the coercive power of the state to force people to do things against their will for the greater good. The reason they feel the need to struggle so hard is because it that's what's necessary to get people past their natural aversion to ignoring other people's agency. That's one of the reasons progressives try to dehumanize their opponents so.

              People wouldn't normally accept using the coercive power of government to, say, force nuns to underwrite the costs of their employees' fornication. You have to dehumanize nuns as some faceless force against abortion, gay rights, and Barack Obama to get people to accept that.

              Like I said, progressives are America's most horrible people.

              1. chemjeff radical individualist   6 years ago

                Sure, most people will respect people's agency on a one-to-one basis. But give them the power of the vote and quite a few of them are perfectly willing to let government take away agency from their neighbors. And that's not just progressives doing that.

                But this whole thing about "respecting people's agency" wasn't on your original 'definition' of progressive anyway.

                "being a progressive is all about using the coercive power of the state to force people to do things against their will for the greater good."

                Are you sure you don't want to revise this position? Otherwise, again, you've basically defined most everyone to be a progressive, most libertarians included. Even minarchist libertarians would still maintain some minimal level of taxation for things like courts. Are they "progressives" too because they would force people to pay (minimal) taxes to pay for the "greater good" of publicly run courts instead of vigilante-style 'justice'?

                1. Nardz   6 years ago

                  Yep, full progressive.

                2. Last of the Shitlords   6 years ago

                  Pedo Jeffy, you’re a stupid kid who argues ridiculous semantics with no sense of proportion or reality. It’s incredibly tedious, not intelligent.

        2. buybuydandavis   6 years ago

          commiejeff, President of Libertarians for the Progressive Deep State

          1. chemjeff radical individualist   6 years ago

            "deep state" lol

          2. Last of the Shitlords   6 years ago

            AKA Pedo Jeffy, Kiddie Raper Enthusiast.

        3. Red Rocks White Privilege   6 years ago

          You're the one who said it led to death camps, you tell us.

        4. Last of the Shitlords   6 years ago

          “Does progressive mean “evil” now?”

          Yes. When hasn’t it?

        5. NashTiger   6 years ago

          Yes

Please log in to post comments

Mute this user?

  • Mute User
  • Cancel

Ban this user?

  • Ban User
  • Cancel

Un-ban this user?

  • Un-ban User
  • Cancel

Nuke this user?

  • Nuke User
  • Cancel

Un-nuke this user?

  • Un-nuke User
  • Cancel

Flag this comment?

  • Flag Comment
  • Cancel

Un-flag this comment?

  • Un-flag Comment
  • Cancel

Latest

Nevada Becomes the 21st State To Strengthen Donor Privacy Protections

Autumn Billings | 6.2.2025 5:30 PM

Harvard International Student With a Private Instagram? You Might Not Get a Visa.

Emma Camp | 6.2.2025 4:57 PM

J.D. Vance Wants a Free Market for Crypto. What About Everything Else?

Eric Boehm | 6.2.2025 4:40 PM

Trump's Attack on the Federalist Society Is a Bad Omen for Originalism

Damon Root | 6.2.2025 3:12 PM

How Palantir Is Expanding the Surveillance State

Elizabeth Nolan Brown | 6.2.2025 12:00 PM

Recommended

  • About
  • Browse Topics
  • Events
  • Staff
  • Jobs
  • Donate
  • Advertise
  • Subscribe
  • Contact
  • Media
  • Shop
  • Amazon
Reason Facebook@reason on XReason InstagramReason TikTokReason YoutubeApple PodcastsReason on FlipboardReason RSS

© 2024 Reason Foundation | Accessibility | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

r

Do you care about free minds and free markets? Sign up to get the biggest stories from Reason in your inbox every afternoon.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

This modal will close in 10

Reason Plus

Special Offer!

  • Full digital edition access
  • No ads
  • Commenting privileges

Just $25 per year

Join Today!