So you are "libertarian" and you think it is GOOD if Mittens endorses your candidate? Did you miss the "libertarian" dogma about NEITHER MAJOR PARTY HAS ANYTHING TO OFFER!
So we see "libertairians" gleefully signing up for a scenario like the following:
Even if Gary Johnson wins the popular vote, he would have to win overall in enough states to pull from Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. The History News Network lists a few states that “could” end up giving Johnson their electoral votes. Alaska, Idaho, Maine, Montana, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming. Although these states would only supply Gary Johnson with 32 electoral votes, that could be enough to keep Clinton and Trump from running away with the race. It could, potentially, keep both Clinton and Trump out of the White House.
So in never never land, "The Johnson" MIGHT end up winning Alaska, Idaho, Maine, Montana, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming! Thirty two whopping electoral votes -- we will leave out the conjecture about "winning the popular vote". Hello? He isn't going to win California, New York, Illinois, Florida or Texas, so he WILL NOT win the popular vote!
So we have "libertarians" salivating over the prospect of the election being thrown into the house, and "somehow", rather than electing a Republican or a Democrat, (if we are REALLY on Pluto here and the D's take the House), one of the two major parties will look around and say "hey, we REALLY need a Johnson stuck right where the sun doesn't shine!".
Really? First of all, what "principle" is it that the "libertarian" party has that would want an election decided this way? "Win Baby Win"? I think we have PLENTY of folks with that philosophy already.
Seriously? This is just too weird to even contemplate someone writing it.
'via Blog this'