Election 2020

Dick's CEO Becomes Latest Anti-Gun Billionaire To Dream of a Third-Party Presidential Run

Well, at least they have the name!


Ed Stack, CEO of Dick's Sporting Goods, has reportedly become the latest in a long line of frustrated centrist billionaires willing to spend his money pursuing the fantasy that you can conjure up a third political party from scratch to elect some relative no-name president.

According to Politico, focus groups were convened in the swing state of Wisconsin this week to consider the 64-year-old Stack in a three-way race against President Donald Trump and either Joe Biden or Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D–Mass.). Front and center in the pro-Stack messaging was his "leadership" on gun control policies, such as universal background checks. Dick's made big splashes by ending the sale of "assault-style rifles" in February 2018, and destroying $5 million worth of its gun inventory this month.

Right on time for a round of earned media, Stack, a longtime Republican voter and donor, has a new memoir out titled, It's How We Play the Game: Build a Business. Take a Stand. Make a Difference. "For readers of Phil Knight's Shoe Dog and Howard Schultz's Onward," goes the promotional text, "an inspiring memoir…about building a multibillion-dollar business, coming to the defense of embattled youth sports programs, and taking a principled—and highly controversial—stand against the types of guns that are too often used in mass shootings and other tragedies."

Hmmm, Howard Schultz…where have I heard that name before?

Like the former Starbucks CEO, who pulled the plug on his centrist third party run in July (and also favored background checks and assault-weapons limitations!), Stack appears to be laboring under the delusion that third parties are easy enough to assemble with a little self-financing. In the Politico article, two-time Gary Johnson spokesman Joe Hunter, who these days is working for Johnson's 2016 running mate Bill Weld in his longshot GOP primary bid against President Donald Trump, throws some cold water on that idea.

"It's massive; all the structural, institutional barriers are really, really difficult," Hunter said. "Absent having extraordinary resources, it would be difficult to put it together."

Last December, third-party specialist Richard Winger of the indispensable Ballot Access News told me that "Ballot access for such a ticket is not nearly as bad a problem as it has been in the past….Since the 2016 election, ballot access for president in the two worst states, North Carolina and Oklahoma, has become much easier. And in 2016 it became much easier in Georgia."

But in a highly charged, highly polarized electoral climate, billionaire centrist campaigns are a brutally efficient way to become hated.

Stack's politics, such as they are, have not produced a deep public footprint. As recently as 2011 he was considering a GOP run against Sen. Bob Casey (D–Pa.); the following year, he donated $100,000 to a pro-Mitt Romney super PAC. Whereas Schultz, like Trump challenger and former South Carolina congressman and governor Mark Sanford, made unsustainable federal debt/deficits his signature issue, the Dick's CEO seems to be talking primarily about gun control, with maybe some youth sports thrown in.

In this matter, he has more in common with perennial presidential trial balloonist Michael Bloomberg, the journalism titan and former mayor of New York who also enjoys a bit of idiotic anti-vaping on the side. Which leads to an obvious follow-up question: If gun control is your issue, why wouldn't just back whoever wins the super gun-controlly Democratic primary?

Preliminary answer: Because faced with the prospect of a Trump vs. Warren, populist vs. populist presidential race, the billionaire CEO class (minus the Tom Steyers of the world) suspects that there may be a huge center lane with their name on it. Schultz frequently hinted that he may be an insurance policy against Democrats failing to rally around comparative centrist Joe Biden; the apparently undeterrable Blomberg has reportedly made the subtext text, with his fellow Gotham super-richies giving out recent quotes like "Bloomberg is in if Biden is out."

As ever, there is one actually existing third party with the ballot access Stack craves, the anti-socialist bonafides that Bloomberg professes, and the dedication to individual rights that both billionaires (and indeed most politicians) find confusing if not abhorrent. I will be moderating a presidential candidates forum for said Libertarian Party on Nov. 2 in Florence, South Carolina. You can watch a debate I moderated in July at this link.

NEXT: Massachusetts Study Confirms That People Rarely Die After Using Opioids Prescribed for Them

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.

  1. Why the current crop of Democrat nominee hopefuls aren’t pursuing the Green Party nomination is beyond me. Maybe it’s because they’re to the left of even the Greens?

    1. They want a future in the Democratic party. If one of them ran as a Green, they would never be allowed back into the party.

      1. Third party candidates are all Russian stooges. This is known.

        1. The irony is that if there was one actual Russian asset running in the 16 election is was McMullin. Jill Stein was part of the Green Party which runs every year. There was nothing special about her running and as much as I disagree with her, it was an honest campaign.

          McMullin was a false flag campaign created specifically to throw the election into the House and cause chaos. If that wasn’t a Russian operation, it might as well have been.

          1. It was a Republican party establishment operation. Their interests merely aligned with the Republicans.

        2. Would that make Sanders a Russian secret agent? He does have an I next to his name except when he’s running for president.

      2. They allow Bernie in and he’s not a dem.

        1. Bernie may pretend he’s (I), but he’s for all intents and purposes a (D), and right now the sanest one in the bunch.

          Green Party is single-issue, and their platform is “people need to die for the sake of Gaia,” so it’s hard to get votes. Everyone knows the dead vote (D).

    2. Fuck this guy. I have not stepped into a Dick’s in years and never will again. Give me Cabela’s, where I can see the Second Amendment carved into stone as I enter the store.

  2. Whose votes do these clowns think they are going to get? The vast majority of Republican voters are pro gun and would never vote for a gun control candidate. The Democratic voters are often anti gun, but they are already voting for gun control by voting Democrat. I would love to hear just who they think their constituency is.

    1. I wonder if stockholders are irked that he cost them money in this stunt to run for office.

      1. They should be

    2. I would love to hear just who they think their constituency is.

      All the people who have sniffed their butts at work over the years. Prob every one of those billionaires thinks people did that for the enjoyment and sheer awesomeness of the experience. So all it takes is a couple hundred mill to get the word out and everyone in America will follow.

      Occupations that Attract the Most and Fewest Sociopaths

      1. CEO
      2. Lawyer
      3. Media
      4. Sales
      5. Surgeon
      6. Journalist
      7. Cop
      8. Clergy
      9. Chef
      10. Bureaucrat

      There aren’t enough elected pols to qualify as an ‘occupation’ but you can bet they ARE #1 and #2 with #4 skills who leverage themselves by appealing to other #1, #2, #3, #6, #7, #8, #10.

      What do you call a large grouping of sociopaths?

      1. What do you call a large grouping of sociopaths?

        A murder? It’s a murder, right?

        1. I was gonna go with clusterfuck.

        2. Hey man, what do you have against crows?

        3. What do you call a large grouping of sociopaths?

          A soviet.

        4. What do you call a large grouping of sociopaths?

        5. “”What do you call a large grouping of sociopaths?”‘


      2. So surgeon is on the list for most likely, but doctor is on the list for least likely. Makes you think about the quality of the study…

        1. I think that makes total sense. Doctors interact with people and care for them directly, while surgeons don’t. Surgeons “perform” in an isolated context, and are often ego-driven more than anything.

          To me it’s perfectly plausible that a sociopath would make a bad doctor but a good surgeon.

          And this is how these sorts of studies are abused. Sociopaths make good CEOs. That’s just an ugly fact of reality. The key is realizing that your CEO is a sociopath and taking that into account in your dealing with him.

          You know who you don’t want as a CEO? Someone who’s constantly hemming and hawing and working themselves up with concern for other people’s feelings. A pair of dice is a better CEO than that person.

          1. I wonder if the study distinguished between CEOs of a large corporation and the CEO of a small to medium business.

          2. Do you have to be a sociopath or psychopath to be a good CEO? If it’s a requirement for a business to be successful to have a leader that has no empathy for people, I think we got a huge problem. However, I think just the opposite is true. A good businessman need to have empathy to understand his customers, and, I would argue, also his employees. This sociopathic CEO archetype might be more indicative of the large corporation being a child of the State. But I don’t know how we could settle this issue.

        2. The number of children abused by public school teachers absolutely dwarfs the numbers abused by priests. The relative numbers are highly similar. But the Clergy are systematically corrupt sociopaths and teachers school administrators are an unfettered good.

        3. Least likely professions for psychopaths:

          1. Care aide
          Like those in North Carolina that set up a fight club with seniors with dementia.

    1. How do you mean? It looks like he rolled over for Israel just like he did for China.

      1. Mizek hardest hit.

      2. Well, they wanted him to fire Morey (which I don’t think he can do) and Silver said no.

        Although it is a different scenario and Silver did apologize and grovel in both circumstances, there was no “corrective measure” taken in the China one as there was in the Israel one.

  3. So what do you do when you have more money than God?
    Go for [buy] the other aphrodisiac, power.

    1. Or maybe go for a legacy where the people you helped thank you.

      It’s one thing to produce $1 billion by helping others via selling them goods/services they want at a fair price. It’s entirely another to deal with the evil power of government, and turn it to actually protecting our lives, liberty and pursuit of happiness, by getting rid of a lot of corrupt government officials that use government to harm us for their benefit. The latter gift, is far more valuable.

  4. pursuing the fantasy that you can conjure up a third political party from scratch to elect some relative no-name president.

    Hey, he’s stealing our thing!

    1. Alleged Republican Trump gets no support from the Dems and scant support from his own party. What hope would a third party president have. All of Congress would be against him/her, not to mention the Deep State. Gotta start at the local level or it’s always going to be just a fantasy.

  5. Why doesn’t Stack start his own third party?
    He could call it the Gun Grabber Party.
    I’m sure it will go over real well in all the liberal enclaves that are guarded, gated and walled.

    1. He could call it the Gun Grabber Party.

      Trademark infringement issues with the Democrat party.

  6. Okay, so we’re talking about electoral prospects?

    The Brookings Institution and company just came out with a survey.

    40% of registered voters say they will support the Democratic candidate over President Trump–no matter who the Democrats nominate.

    29% of registered voters say they will support President Trump–no matter who the Democrats nominate for president.

    29% of registered voters say their vote will depend on who wins the Democratic primary.


    Don’t get too excited about national numbers like that because if Californians break 70/30 for the Democrats, that won’t translate into any more seats in the electoral college. The question is how states like Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin break down, and out of that 29% who say how they’ll vote depends on who the Democrats nominate, I suspect a high percentage of those are what I’d call “Trump Democrats”. These are white, blue collar, workers in the Midwest, who were disgusted with the social justice warriors and aren’t about to support someone, like Liz Warren, who thinks of them as “deplorables”. They broke for President Trump in 2016, and watching the Democratic primaries, I don’t see any good reason to believe they won’t break for Trump again in 2020.

    That 29% is probably the max that can be obtained by a third party in 2020. When Ross Perot won 19% of the vote in 1992, it netted him zero electoral votes.

    Wiki Duverger’s Law.

    1. http://www.startribune.com/trump-trails-top-democrats-in-new-minnesota-poll/563399592/

      Right now in a poll of registered voters not likely voters that is heavily weighted Democratic, the best they can do is get Warren and Biden up by 12. That means in reality is it probably around five or less. If Minnesota is competitive, Trump is likely doing just fine in the rest of the Midwest.

    2. Those polls are all useless. There is almost certainly no one who will ‘change their mind’ to the other side of DeRp. And turnout won’t change by enough in most states to affect the election at all.

      So the electoral prospects are:
      Dems need roughly 450,000 voters in a half dozen states they lost close last time.
      Reps need roughly 300,000 to turn a couple of states they lost close last time.

      Whichever party gets out their base and repels everyone else into not voting in those tiny areas will win. Everyone else in the US is just on the sidelines.

      1. The reps won last time. So they don’t need to turn anything if they hold onto what they have. Ultimately, it is hard to see why anyone who voted for Trump would not do so again. In fact, a good number of people who stayed home or voted third party who normally vote Republican will likely vote for Trump in 20. So, Trump is pretty certain to get more votes as a known commodity who hasn’t pissed off his supporters than he did running as an unknown.

        Meanwhile, it is hard to see where the Democrats get more votes. The people who voted for Hillary will vote for whoever they run this time. But who didn’t vote for Hillary will show up in 20 to vote D? Unless they can get a candidate who can inspire the kind of loyalty and turnout among blacks that Obama did, it is hard to see where they get the new votes necessary to win.

        1. So they don’t need to turn anything if they hold onto what they have.

          That ‘hold’ is 10k votes in MI; 20k in WI; 45k in PA. Hillary lost those three in part at least because she did nothing to GOTV there. You think that will be repeated? In all three cases, that margin is well within the margin of whatever voters have died since then – and there’s no question Dems have the generational edge in those states. Which means Reps are also gonna have to pour a ton in there to hold.

          I actually think the odds are greater than 50% that Trump does win cuz I don’t see Dems trying to appeal to the Rust Belt right now. Those states plus NC/VA/FL/NV/AZ/NH are the only real election contests. But it’s a long way away.

        2. Ultimately, it is hard to see why anyone who voted for Trump would not do so again.

          Well here’s a global image of soybean shipping from a few days. Nothing from the US to anywhere. Lots of ships going from Brazil to China. That trade won’t recover – and likely there won’t be a trade deal with China by 2020 either. Pretty much they have no reason to vote FOR Trump since they are paying the cost of that trade war. That actually makes IA a really important bellwether state this year.

          1. Two points:

            1) Soybean purchases are a big part of what made Trump change his tune in his “phase 1” agreement with China. Those soybean purchases are forthcoming.

            2) Assuming that because soybean sales are down that means that voters must hate Trump is like assuming that because World War II veterans paid the highest price for D-Day, they must have hated Eisenhower more than the average voter.

            The polls I’ve seen in soy state and steel states–that have been hit by Chinese tariffs the hardest–seem to be the states where Trump is the most popular. Sometimes theories don’t check with the facts, and the theory that soybean and steel states will turn against Trump because they’re the biggest victims of the trade war just hasn’t panned out in the polling data.

            In fact, people are arguing over why that is. I suspect it’s because of a couple factors:

            1) Because steel manufacturers and giant soy producers are feeling the pain doesn’t mean the workers are feeling the pain. Boeing’s stock price taking a hit may hurt investors without really having much impact on Boeing workers in Seattle. Big farming conglomerates may have a few voters in Iowa, but most of the voters in Iowa may be working people driving the trucks around–oblivious to the loss of profits so long as they’re getting a paycheck.

            2) Trump’s deregulation and tax cuts spurred pent up demand for labor that had been dormant since the last recession. The fact that Obama heaped taxes and regulation on labor amid a recession is fucking amazing. It’s much easier to take it on the chin for steel if the demand for labor suddenly increases despite the drop in sales of soy and steel. If soybean and steel industries don’t need truck drivers anymore, that’s okay if other industries are suddenly in demand of more truck drivers.

            1. Here’s some data for you. More than one link, so more than one post:

              “Among the 15 states most affected by the tariffs (calculated by the Brookings Institution), Trump’s approval rating is 57 percent, according to a Washington Post-Schar School poll conducted June 27 to July 2. On Election Day in 2016, 52 percent of voters in those same states supported Trump.

              The 15 states with the highest share of jobs at risk in the U.S.-China trade war are Arkansas, Iowa, Nebraska, Alaska, Idaho, Mississippi, Washington, Kentucky, South Dakota, Alabama, Delaware, Michigan, Indiana, Wisconsin and North Dakota, according to a Brookings analysis by senior fellow Mark Muro.

              —-Washington Post, July 12, 2018


            2. “A straw poll of 1,153 farmers showed 71 percent of them approved of Trump in office in August, according to surveys conducted by the Farm Journal (it should be noted that these results are not weighted). In the October 2018 Farm Journal survey of 921 farmers, 62 percent said they supported Trump going into the midterm elections, and by December 2018 77 percent of 1,199 farmers said they approved of Trump’s presidency.”

              —-Vox, September 9, 2019


            3. Those soybean purchases are forthcoming

              No they aren’t. And it doesn’t matter what Trump tweets. That’s not how markets work. Only thing that matters is when ships loaded with soybeans leave New Orleans for China. Even if China is inclined to switch suppliers now merely to help Trump out, it takes months for those ships to change routes. And it will take until next year for farmers to plant the soy to replenish the inventory that was run down precisely because there was a trade war on. The only soybeans China buys are the ones that are already sitting in inventory so until that inventory replenishes China ain’t gonna be buying much more soybeans from the US. And Brazil has massively expanded their soy acreage (all them recent forest fires in the Amazon) to handle all the volume China needs – so to get those sales back from Brazil now, the US is now going to have to undercut Brazil in a price war and I’m certain Brazilians are willing to go/stay lower for longer. Trump doesn’t have the attention span to follow the ACTUAL soybean market. He can tweet whatever he wants about the paper/digital soybean ‘market’ and ‘agreements’. And that may even work in NYC and among the stupid. But in farm country, they only get paid for ACTUAL soybeans. Only the financial sector gets paid for paper soybeans.

              Hell if there is half a brain cell in the D field, they will start tweeting that the only permanent impact of Trumps ‘war on farmers’ (I’m claiming this phrase – I expect royalties you fucking D’s) is the destruction of the Amazon and making climate change worse. Course I’m sure their following tweet will undermine that by yapping about growing arugula instead of soy/corn.

              Big farming conglomerates may have a few voters in Iowa, but most of the voters in Iowa may be working people driving the trucks around–oblivious to the loss of profits so long as they’re getting a paycheck.

              Conglomerates don’t grow soy. Farmers do and Iowa is full of them. In a couple months, they will make a momentous decision whether to go to the R caucus or the D caucus. Most can’t mentally make that switch – but Iowa is the one state where increased D turnout at their caucus (for what will almost certainly be a ‘surprise’ candidate) will be a bellwether. The only way anyone will know that is not via ‘polls’ – not even Iowa ‘polls’ — or debate BS – or national stories about this or that – but by seeing the crowd response to those candidates – including Trump – IN Iowa. This is why IA and NH have always been important. They are RETAIL politics not wholesale politics. The only candidates to appear there recently AFAIK (just a crappy filter for local Iowa media, ‘campaign appearance’, last week) are Harris, Bennett, Bullock. Delaney, Klobuchar and Buttigeig were there a couple days before that. If those stay camped there and get some oxygen, watch out. They are doing exactly what a ‘moderate’ Dem needs to do to get just a few R’s to the D caucus. You heard it here first.

              1. JFree… opinions from someone who doesnt live in a small rural state nor has any idea what non-Lefties think or vote like.

                According to JFree, Hillary would be running for reelection as President in his World.

              2. “No they aren’t. And it doesn’t matter what Trump tweets. That’s not how markets work. Only thing that matters is when ships loaded with soybeans leave New Orleans for China.”

                There’s more to it than Trump’s tweets.

                China dropped tariffs for soybeans.

                “China offers tariff-free quota for 10 million tonnes of U.S. soybean purchases: sources”

                —-Reuters, October 22, 2019


                That’s good news for soybean farmers by itself, but it also may indicate what’s been obvious since the purchases were announced–which is that China would probably drop their tariffs on soybeans after the soybean purchases were announced–unless they were planning to tax themselves for the purchases.

                Regardless of whatever else dropping those tariffs means, China dropping tariffs isn’t indicative of a trade war escalating. Incidentally, China already bought a huge amount of pork and soybeans ahead of the recent talks. They’re dropping tariffs now, and while the future is never certain, all indications are that those soybean sales are forthcoming.

                P.S. Expectations of future prices have an impact–even before the soybeans are on the ship to China.

                1. all indications are that those soybean sales are forthcoming.

                  Fake soybean sales are forthcoming (I’m claiming royalties on that too you fucking D’s). Stuff that can be packaged for TV or a tweet or a computer screen. It has no more to do with actual soybeans than Magritte’s This is Not a Pipe has to do with a pipe.

                  Call me when actual soybeans get on a ship and go to China. Cuz it ain’t gonna be until at least harvest next season.

                  P.S. Expectations of future prices have an impact–even before the soybeans are on the ship to China.

                  Soybean prices are rising right now. For the sole purpose of getting farmers to switch from corn to soy (and preserving existing stocks until then). That is not the way you sell more soybeans to China when your new competitor is going to be lowering prices next year before you can even get to harvest. It is however the way you build inventory back up so that THEN you can sell to China by dropping prices. That fake soybean shoe is gonna drop next year – though I’m sure Wall St (which is the major producer of fake soybeans) will make money on the farmers loss re that one.

                  As my own aside — this is actually a VERY good demonstration of why we need to monetize commodities and add competition to the Federal Reserve and Wall St.

                  1. Excuse me, are you saying that someone is manipulating the soybean market?

                    OPEC can’t hardly seem to get the oil market under control, but someone–either in China or the U.S.–is manipulating the world soybean market in such a way so as to maximize prices in the future?

                    Is Brazil in on this conspiracy?

                    I don’t even understand what you’re arguing anymore.

                    If farmers planted fewer soybeans last season for whatever reason–be it infected herds of hogs being slaughtered and hurting the demand for soy meal or tariffs–and now the price of soybeans are going up because demand is coming back, that might make sense. A 3d chess scenario where Beijing or trade representatives in Washington are manipulating the supplies and prices of soy so as to make Trump look ingenious or stupid on trade is the tail wagging the dog. They’re not that smart and they’re not that stupid.

                    Trump wants the Chinese to buy more soy–regardless of where prides are. The Chinese don’t want to jack the prices up on themselves–and so they’re dropping those tariffs. That’s all the dimensions this analysis needs.

      2. “There is almost certainly no one who will ‘change their mind’ to the other side of DeRp”

        Swing voters are as real as swing states.

        People generally only change their party registration when they move. There were plenty of registered Democrats who voted for Trump in 2016. That’s also why Trump did so well in the primaries in states with open primaries–where registered Democrats could vote in Republican primaries. In states with open primaries, Trump only lost Ohio and Texas–and in those states, the only lost because Kucinich and Cruz were native sons of Ohio and Texas respectively. Trump kicked ass with the help of registered Democrats who voted Republican. He lost some other open primary states late, but by then it didn’t matter.

        There were plenty of people who voted for Obama in 2008 and Trump in 2016–and I see no reason why they wouldn’t vote for Trump in 2020 again and for all the same reasons. From the trade wars to immigration, Trump has pretty much modeled his presidency on the promises he made to swing voters in the rust belt. He renegotiated NAFTA and went hard on China. If they voted for him when he was making those promises, why wouldn’t they vote for him now that he’s delivered.

        Unskilled workers in the rust belt haven’t had it so good in generations.

  7. Next time my progressive friends criticize the so-called “excessive influence of billionaires in American politics,” Stack is yet another name I will mention to dispute that characterization. Because actually, this country would be better if billionaires had even more influence. They’re on the right side of history more often than the general population. Here are some other examples:

    Charles and (the late) David Koch devoted much of their hard-earned fortune to funding open borders advocacy.
    Tom Steyer is a leading voice in the movement to #Impeach Putin’s Puppet.
    Mike Bloomberg has an excellent record supporting gun sense and abortion access.


    1. C – same ole same ole

    2. I’d actually like to suspend all campaign finance law and see what kind of presidential candidate all the billionaires of the world would buy.

      I have a feeling it would be the best.

  8. As a libertarian, I’d like to see more billionaires running for office, but how about mayor, governor, senator, congressmen, or cabinet official? They’re all running for President!

    Clint Eastwood, a libertarian, was mayor for a term. I respect that.

    I trust politicians less, and the billionaire is already rich.

    1. Running for those things would mean actually working and doing something. These guys don’t want that. They just want to be on TV and be famous. These are all vanity campaigns.

    2. The other thing is, some of these billionaires are “true believers”. Not all politicians are in it for the money. I will take an honest politician who stays bought over a true believer.
      It sounds like you are making the same mistake some on the left do, that it is all about money. It isn’t. Sometimes they actually believe this horseshit.

      1. I would rather have a crook who will do the right thing for the wrong reasons than a true believer who will keep doing the wrong thing no matter what the cost.

        Fuck true believers.

    3. Having had a Billionaire as a Mayor (Bloomberg), I can say it doesn’t workout like you expect.

  9. Dick’s made big splashes by ending the sale of “assault-style rifles” in February 2018, and destroying $5 million worth of its gun inventory this month.

    Obviously Dick’s stockholders are too chickenshit to sue that company for literally burning $5M worth of merchandise and devaluing its stock.

    1. Also, giving the advertising campaign “We’ll sell you an AR-15 because we aren’t Dicks.” away for free to their competition.

  10. >>Stack, a longtime Republican voter and

    idiot tyrant?

  11. Am I cynical to think that Stack is considering a presidential run as a way to promote his book?

    1. Its actually the next attempt to remind woke people that Dicks is dick store

    2. I was thinking exactly the same thing but then I think Beto is also pushing for a book deal since the last one in 2011 is getting long in the tooth.

  12. “Ed Stack, CEO of Dick’s Sporting Goods, has reportedly become the latest in a long line of frustrated centrist billionaires willing to spend his money pursuing the fantasy that you can conjure up a third political party from scratch to elect some relative no-name president.”

    And that the supposed 3rd-party POTUS can somehow void A2 ’cause feelz.

    1. And that the supposed 3rd-party POTUS can somehow void A2 ’cause feelz.

      Remember how Trump was a tin pot dictator who’s rampant off-the-cuff speculation about conspiracy was fundamentally undermining our democracy and turning this country into a banana republic?

    2. In what world is Ed Stack a “centrist”?

  13. “In the Politico article, two-time Gary Johnson spokesman Joe Hunter, who these days is working for Johnson’s 2016 running mate Bill Weld in his longshot GOP primary bid against President Donald Trump, throws some cold water on that idea.”

    “Trust me, I know about loser campaigns, and I know one when I see one!”

  14. Whatever gun laws he supports, I bet his own personal and company guards get gun permits.

    1. Well, we don’t want to be extremists here.

  15. My local Dick’s has double stack pistols and magazine fed rifles in 7.62.

    1. My local dick has one of those things that goes up.

  16. His publisher got together a 12 person “focus group” and mentioned “presidential campaign” to get the media to help pump the book.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.