Ballot Access News Article on How Lyndon LaRouche’s Past Could Help Donald Trump in the Future

Lyndon LaRouche

Richard Winger has this article at Ballot Access News, entitled “Lyndon LaRouche Doesn’t Approve of Donald Trump, but LaRouche Set Precedents that Would Help Trump if Trump Were To Make an Independent Run“:

If Donald Trump were to leave the race for the Republican nomination and run as an independent or minor party candidate in November 2016, he would be aided by many precedents set in the past by previous presidential candidates who ran in major party presidential primaries and then ran in the general election outside the major parties. These precedents show that sore loser laws don’t apply to presidential primaries, because no one is defeated for a presidential nomination in any single state’s presidential primary.

John Anderson ran in 22 Republican presidential primaries in 1980 and still got on the ballot in all states in November as an independent or minor party candidate. After Anderson, the individual who set the most precedents is Lyndon LaRouche, who sought the Democratic nomination in 1984, 1988, and 1992, and then ran as an independent in all three elections.

In 1992 alone, LaRouche set precedents in states in which Anderson had not set such a precedent. LaRouche ran in Democratic presidential primaries, and then got on the ballot as an independent the same year, in Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, North Dakota, Ohio, Rhode Island, Washington, and Wisconsin. In nine of those eleven states, that set a new precedent that Anderson had not set. Anderson had not run in presidential primaries in any of those LaRouche 1992 states except Louisiana and Massachusetts.

Notwithstanding that LaRouche’s past activity now helps Trump maintain flexibility, LaRouche does not approve of Donald Trump. See this August 14, 2016 article about Trump in the LaRouche organization’s publication Executive Intelligence Review.

10 thoughts on “Ballot Access News Article on How Lyndon LaRouche’s Past Could Help Donald Trump in the Future

  1. Jed Ziggler Post author

    Not if the Queen of England has anything to say about it!

    Seriously though, that is impressive. My grandma turns 90 tomorrow, I can’t imagine living that long, seeing that much. Happy Birthday, Lyndon!

  2. cbbruuno

    A couple of quick questions-
    1) Wasn’t Michigan’s ‘sore loser law’ upheld in 2012 against Gary Johnson? If so, how?
    2) Do any other states currently have ‘sore loser laws’ applying to the presidential race other than Michigan?

  3. Richard Winger

    The Michigan law does not pertain to independent candidates. Gary Johnson was free to have petitioned onto the November ballot as an independent.

  4. Green_w_o_Adjectives

    Strange connection. While I generally don’t approve of Larouche and his conspiracy theories, on a gut level I think the conspiracist Larouchie article might be on the right track that Trump is probably connected to the larger hidden security state in some kind of way. The mass media has, since the freaking 80s, been talking up Trump as some kind of celebrity we should look up to, and it’s also creepy how Trump was involved in mafia/underworld stuff since way back when as well (of course, Larouche was prosecuted for the same kind of shit, and may well be connected himself in some way). I was rewatching the Tyson/Spinks fight recently and I found it crazy how the announcers idolized Trump as if he was the biggest pimp in the room…Anyway I think it’s a good idea to keep all this questionable history in mind when people get all caught up in the present media circus around Trump .

  5. paulie

    Wasn’t Michigan’s ‘sore loser law’ upheld in 2012 against Gary Johnson? If so, how?

    Partisan malfeasance and corruption on the part of the Secretary of State and the courts.

  6. paulie

    Do any other states currently have ‘sore loser laws’ applying to the presidential race other than Michigan?

    Ohio SOS has hinted they do, and there may conceivably be others. Ohio is significant because it is in the same circuit court district as Michigan, and has also had ridiculous anti-ballot access actions of its SOS upheld by the court already.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.