Five things to know about David French

"Bloomberg and other media outlets began reporting that the mystery candidate in question is David French, a National Review staff writer who graduated from Harvard Law School, earned a Bronze Star in the Iraq War, and has worked for both Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) and the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ). By late Tuesday, French was trending as the second most popular topic on Twitter."

2480 reads

There are 7 Comments

Aaron Blumer's picture

EditorAdmin

I hope he gets in.

Yes, I've heard all the "a vote for a third party candidate is a vote for Hillary" arguments. These completely lose their punch when you honestly can't tell which candidate would do the most harm in the long run. If we look at the big picture just a tiny bit, it's not so hard to see that it's well past time conservatives told the GOP that we're not going to just back any old candidate you decide to throw at us.

(I voted for Bush, McCain, and Romney willingly enough, but Trump is in a whole different category. I will not support the GOP if it nominates this man.)

French on the other hand, while he arguably has almost no chance of winning, would give conservatives a sane choice--not a choice that will help USA much in 2016-2020, but will help true conservatism, which helps the country more down the road.

Conservatives: turn your radios off and do some thoughtful reading. (Start with Thomas Sowell's Conflict of Visions, then take on Russel Kirk's The Conservative Mind.)

DLCreed's picture

I've been a Facebook "friend" for years and have watched and read his thoughts and philosophy.  I could vote for him 10,000x easier than anyone else left in the field of the two big parties right now.

 

Craig's picture

If a third party candidate is going to win this would be the year to do it ... but don't wait too long.

Jim's picture

General Election: Trump vs. Clinton vs. Johnson (Johnson /  Weld  being the Libertarian offering)

Johnson at 8% (Note must be at 15% threshold to be in debates):

Why did CPD Select 15 Percent as the Polling Threshold for Inclusion in the Debates? The CPD first adopted the 15 percent level of support criterion in 2000. Its initial adoption, and its adoption in subsequent cycles, was preceded by careful study and reflects a number of considerations. It was the CPD’s judgment that the 15 percent threshold best balanced the goal of being sufficiently inclusive to invite those candidates considered to be among the leading candidates, without being so inclusive that invitations would be extended to candidates with only very modest levels of public support, thereby jeopardizing the voter education purposes of the debates. Notably, the League of Women Voters struck the balance in the same way. Fifteen percent was the figure used in the League of Women Voters’ 1980 selection criteria, which resulted in the inclusion of independent candidate John Anderson in one of the League’s debates.

Prior to adopting the 15 percent standard, the CPD conducted its own analysis of the results of presidential elections over the modern era and concluded that a level of 15 percent support of the national electorate is achievable by a significant third party or independent candidate who captures the public's interest. In making this determination, the CPD considered, in particular, the popular support achieved by George Wallace in 1968 (Mr. Wallace had achieved a level of support as high as 20 percent in pre-election polls from September 1968); by John Anderson in 1980 (Mr. Anderson’s support in various polls reached 15 percent when the League of Women Voters invited him to participate in one of its debates); and by Ross Perot in 1992 (Mr. Perot’s standing in 1992 polls at one time was close to 40 percent and exceeded that of the major party candidates, and he ultimately received 18.7 percent of the popular vote).

The CPD's nonpartisan candidate selection criteria and 15 percent threshold have been found by the FEC and the courts to comply with federal election law. The same is true for the earlier criteria CPD used in 1988, 1992 and 1996.

G. N. Barkman's picture

What are the implications for the Supreme Court if Clinton wins?

G. N. Barkman

Wayne Wilson's picture

G. N. Barkman wrote:

What are the implications for the Supreme Court if Clinton wins?

It will certainly turn to a Left-leaning majority. But then, what are the implications for America and the world if Donald Trump wins?  

jimcarwest's picture

He says yesterday that he won't be running.  So it appears that third-party activists are back to square one.