RALEIGH (WTVD) — Republican presidential hopeful Donald Trump’s lead continues to grow in North Carolina, according to a poll released Wednesday by liberal-leaning Public Policy Polling but it’s the surprise inclusion of an independent candidate that’s turning heads.
The new PPP poll revealed independent candidate Deez Nuts is polling at 9 percent in the Tar Heel state. The name is from a legal document to register as a candidate. Running as an independent from Wallingford, Iowa; population 197, Deez Nuts has gone viral and has a large fan base.
The Daily Beast claimed in a post Wednesday night to have tracked Mr. Nuts down, and reported he’s actually a 15-year-old named Brady Olson.
Read the rest of the article at ABC11.com
On Twitter, the news station sent out the following tweet:
No, we were not hacked. ‘Deez Nuts’ is the legal name of the candidate and he is polling at 9 percent in NC:
UPDATE: Reason Magazine reports that Brady Olson a/k/a Deez Nuts is a supporter of the Libertarian Party who endorses Gary Johnson for President in 2016.
“If I had a voice in 2012, I would have endorsed Gary Johnson. For 2016, if people didn’t vote for me, I would encourage them to vote for Johnson where I don’t have ballot access or write in access. I side with the LP because, like me, they are generally socially left and fiscally right.”
He said he could support “Either Bernie Sanders(D-VT) or Gary Johnson(L-NM)” if he had to back someone else, and that he “side(s) more with the Libertarian Party” than either of the big two. That’s different from being a hardcore Johnson and/or LP supporter, and if he was, why would he want to run against Johnson (or whoever the LP nominee is) in the general election, any more than for the nomination?
BTW, he has a platform, which has some libertarian elements and some that are not so much:
http://deeznutsforpresident2016.yolasite.com/Platform.php
“Perhaps, although he also listed Bernie Sanders as someone he maybe could support, so that’s quite a range.”
Not necessarily. Of all the duopoly candidates, Sanders is the one I’d be most likely to vote for, and I am also on record as a Gary Johnson supporter.
Using his real name would take all the fun out of it. If that’s the case, he would do better as a write-in.
Perhaps, although he also listed Bernie Sanders as someone he maybe could support, so that’s quite a range.
He’s already said he supports Gary Johnson, so assumedly doesn’t want to go against him for the LP nod.
Hmmmm…. from the RS interview:
Q: If you had to back another presidential candidate, who would it be?
A: Either Bernie Sanders(D-VT) or Gary Johnson(L-NM)
Q: How would you describe your political orientation? have you ever been a registered Democrat or Republican?
A: I’m fifteen, so I haven’t been registered yet. I side more with the Libertarian Party.
“Political Party Nominations I Am Considering Running For
American Populist Party
Citizens Party
Independence Party
Justice Party
Marijuana Party
Moderate Party
Modern Whig Party
Reform Party
Rent Is Too Damn High Party”
I assume by Marijuana Party he means the U.S. Marijuana Party, as the American Marijuana Party already has a candidate. Given the media attention he’s getting it’s not inconceivable that he might actually get a tiny party’s nomination, and get on state ballots where presidential candidates aren’t required to meet eligibility requirements, though he may have to use his real name.
Not listed on his site.
How about the LP? 🙂
Supposedly he’s going to try to get some parties’ nominations, including the Reform Party, Modern Whig Party, U.S. Marijuana Party, etc.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/08/20/warren-g-endorses-deez-nuts-for-president.html
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/meet-deez-nuts-the-teen-presidential-candidate-punking-america-20150819
This kid is my new hero!
When I first saw the picture, I was confused. I thought “Deez Nuts” was a reference to Clinton and Trump (Hillary being the left nut and Donald the right nut).
Whoa, that’s wild that someone did a knockoff / ripoff of this website. What’s the point? Is this the work of a spurned lover?
The name of that other one — “Third-Party Report” — might actually be a better fit for this site. It seems like most of the editors & commenters here are more interested in their pet party fiefdoms than truly encouraging independent nonpartisan political engagement.
I am inspired by the fact that 9% of those polled have retained their sense of humor.
I consider myself libertarian but I probably will never join the party. The slow decline is clear http://amthirdpartyreport.com/2015/08/18/the-slow-decline-of-the-libertarian-party/ and like most institutions these days, I don’t think the national party is being run by competent people or putting forth attractive candidates nationally. Gary Johnson is a nice guy and I appreciate that he took time for me to interview him in 2012, but I don’t think he’s the special kind of candidate that Rand Paul could be. I’d like to see Rand Paul win the Republican nomination. It would be great for libertarianism. It’s very unlikely right now, but it might still happen. On the other hand, like Ralph Nader, I am excited about the prospect of Trump running as an Independent. He’s the new Ross Perot and he has the best chance of ending the two party stranglehold. Some of his views are problematic, but he’s the only candidate out there talking about the problem of political correctness.
Funny that they don’t have a picture of Deez Nuts. I’m gonna snap a quick pic of Deez Nuts and submit it to ABC. BRB.
Update back on the original topic, “Deez Nuts” is apparently a Libertarian who endorses Gary Johnson.
http://reason.com/blog/2015/08/20/2016-presidential-candidate-deez-nuts-is
The questions about Jews and the pending extinction of white people threw me for a loop briefly, until I scrolled back up and saw who the interviewer was.
Paulie… thanks for the link above re: Saturn’s views. Very enlightening.
He seems awfully interested in what the chair of the LNC does or does not say, for a non-Libertarian. But if he’s not a Libertarian, fair enough and that was an incorrect assumption on my part, in which case it’s case it’s no different than any other non-Libertarian lecturing us on what Libertarians should believe in or say.
He talks about some of his beliefs and affiliations at https://thesaturnalian.wordpress.com/2014/12/30/2014-interviews-of-saturn/
Saturn is not in the LP and as far as I know never was. I think he has voted for us at least once or twice, but he’s also voted for lots of candidates who are not even close to libertarian, doesn’t call himself a libertarian as far as I know, etc.
Otherwise, AC makes great points in this thread.
And yes, Saturn has referenced his complaints about the Cuba letter in a number of past IPR threads, although I don’t know about “every time.”
Andy Craig… are you suggesting that William Saturn is a libertarian/Libertarian? I don’t recall he has ever said what his political or philosophical beliefs are. If I’m wrong perhaps William can clarify.
“Sarwark makes a joke about Trump and leaves Hillary alone.”
William Saturn, Joke Police.
“I then cited to an article in which I reference a claim that Sarwark believes he should cater to progressives to make up for past outreach to conservatives.”
A completely unsubstantiated and speculative claim contradicted by the evidence.
“All I saw at that time was Sarwark lecturing Paul: [anti-war letter]”
Do you actually disagree with anything he said there? Or are you just complaining that we’re not backing Rand Paul? In which case you’re in the wrong party. As for your much-desired example of the LNC Chair saying something nice about Rand Paul, again Google is your friend:
https://www.lp.org/news/press-releases/call-now-and-urge-your-us-senators-to-let-the-%E2%80%98patriot%E2%80%99-act-die
‘You talked about something when you could have talked about this other thing!’ is the cheapest and most frivolous of political attacks. There is no substance to it, and it can literally always be tossed at anybody no matter what they actually said.
“What else could I be referring to? ”
When you follow it up with a link alleging some secret unwillingness to criticize Hillary, then the obvious reading would be that you’re trying to make a broader point than just the original joke.
Though if you really were just complaining about the Trump joke, that’s even more petty and absurd than the way I had read it.
As another example of the exact same thing, I wrote a letter to the editor praising Rep. Sensenbrenner (R-WI) and the Center for American Progress. Why? Because they joined together to call for the abolition of the ATF, and it was an opportunity to point out we’ve always advocated that.
I also didn’t mention Rand Paul.
http://www.jsonline.com/news/opinion/letters-b99508206z1-305398911.html
I look forward to the expose on how “Libertarian Congressional Candidate Praises Author of the PATRIOT Act!”
I said:
“Mr. Sarwark easily attacks Mr. Trump but does not attack Hillary Clinton.”
What else could I be referring to? The article mentions Trump and Hillary. Sarwark makes a joke about Trump and leaves Hillary alone. I then cited to an article in which I reference a claim that Sarwark believes he should cater to progressives to make up for past outreach to conservatives.
“And it’s still a false equivalence”
In December 2014, when Paul was leading the polls in the Republican Party (which is far more supportive of Cuba sanctions), Paul wrote the following high profile Time Magazine article:
http://time.com/3642353/rand-paul-cuba-rubio-isolationists-just-dont-get-it/
Did Sarwark praisie Paul for his (actual) courage in lieu of Hillary mindlessly following the party line? I don’t know. I didn’t see anything. All I saw at that time was Sarwark lecturing Paul. https://www.lp.org/news/press-releases/an-open-letter-from-libertarian-party-chair-nicholas-sarwark-to-sen-rand-paul
I seem to recall this isn’t the first time you’ve jumped in after Nick commented to post that, but if not fair enough. I’m not going to go searching through past comment threads, but I can’t think of any other way I would have seen it before, given that I don’t regularly read ATPR. Either way it was obnoxious this time.
” I was clearly referring to the statement Sarwark made above.”
That wasn’t clear at all. It was a general statement about willingness to “attack” (I prefer “criticize”) Trump and Clinton. If you didn’t clearly say what you meant, that isn’t my fault.
“Good for him. But I was talking about Cuba in my statement above.”
And it’s still a false equivalence, because Hillary Clinton is the prohibitive favorite for her party’s nomination and a much higher-profile figure, whereas Rand Paul is in a statistical tie for next-to-last place in a field of 17 Republicans. And he was writing the letter to a Miami paper in response to a speech Hillary had given in Miami that that paper had reported on. That’s how letters to the editor work, typically. And the reason it was “brave” is because of the history of embargo politics and Cuban exiles impacting presidential general elections in Florida, an important swing state, which would have been the obvious historical context to anybody in Miami reading it. That’s something Hillary has to worry about but Rand does not, because Rand is not going to be his party’s nominee, and even if he was would not be facing a pro-embargo opponent while trying to win Florida.
Complaining that he didn’t list and praise every other politician who’s supported ending the embargo (or rather, one of them in particular) is ridiculous.
“When is the last time you criticized Libertarian leadership?”
About two days ago in the Oregon thread, and before that when the logo was adopted, and before that when Wes sent out his religion poll, and going back further than when the LNC didn’t give Nick his choice of excomm members.
You mean Nick in particular? I have very few complaints about him, though I suppose the logo might count as one. I’ll openly admit I hope he runs for re-election and will support him if he does, though. And his willingness to do smart, targeted “credit where credit is due for finally agreeing with us” pieces is part of the reason why.
“Your original assertion was that Nick ‘ does not attack Hillary Clinton.’ That is demonstrably false.”
Here you take me completely out of context. Again, that isn’t surprising. I was clearly referring to the statement Sarwark made above.
“You complain that he doesn’t instead praise Rand Paul. He has, on other topics.”
Good for him. But I was talking about Cuba in my statement above.
“screed that you link to in every thread Nick comments on”
This is a lie as I have never done such a thing before now. I am not surprised. It is clear that you are the real hack here. When is the last time you criticized Libertarian leadership? And don’t misconstrue what I am saying. I am not trying to make a rhetorical argument. I am asking because I don’t know and I haven’t seen any from you.
The real significance of the North Carolina poll is that it shows Trump being Hillary Clinton in North Carolina, even with a side option included for people who are unhappy with both major parties.
I already gave you your substantial reply to why your complaint is meaningless hackery, I’m not going to repeat myself just because you want to.
Your original assertion was that Nick ” does not attack Hillary Clinton.”
That is demonstrably false.
You complain that he doesn’t instead praise Rand Paul.
He has, on other topics.
I’ve read your screed that you link to in every thread Nick comments on, and it boils down to “Eek! Hillary is evil! Don’t ever agree with her!” – which isn’t principled, isn’t Libertarian, and sounds like something straight from a Rush Limbaugh dittohead.
Obviously you don’t know the definition of substance. That’s not surprising.
When there’s no substantive complaint to respond to, don’t be surprised when you get a less-than-substantive dismissal.
Just like Sarwark’s criticism of Hillary, your above comment lacks substance.
@William Saturn
Your grasping at straws is so obvious it speaks for itself.
Andy C.,
And yet Sarwark failed to give credit to Rand Paul for the deal as well. Paul came out in support of the policy before Hillary Clinton. Hillary Clinton was not head of the state department when this policy was enacted. There was absolutely no reason to give such gratuitous praise to Clinton in such a public forum.
You cite to Sarwark’s supposed criticism of Hillary but it is actually completely empty criticism. There’s nothing substantive in the criticism you cite.
Haters be hatin’ on Nick…. and they be hatin’ on Deez Nuts.
Deez Nuts is swingin’ … the election, son!
“Back in 2000, there was a daily Reuters tracking poll that included Gore, Bush, Nader, Buchanan, Browne, Hagelin, and Phillips. I loved it. I don’t think there’s been any regular presidential polls since that have included alternative candidates.”
That’s awesome. I can’t imagine any major pollster doing that today, but it would be nice.
@ William Saturn
You’re being willfully obtuse. Nick was giving her credit for calling for the repeal of sanctions on Cuba. Nowhere in the letter does he deny that Hillary has supported sanctions elsewhere, or say anything positive about her other than that she’s right in what she said about Cuba. And he also uses it to make the point that we oppose sanctions in general, not just on Cuba.
Your complaint is wholly contrived and meritless. There was nothing wrong with Nick’s letter, and you look ridiculous complaining that Nick’s *jokes* are further evidence of some secret unwillingness to criticize Hillary Clinton (which, again, two seconds on Google would have found you an example of).
“Mr. Saturn apparently thinks we should instead attack Democrats for doing something we’ve always called for.”
Libertarians have called for sanctions against Russia?
“This is potentially really bad for minor parties looking for a spot in the debates. This survey will be used as a talking point that lowering the polling threshold would open things up to chaos.”
That thought did occur to me, but it seems the obvious retort would be to point to ballot access. It seems that a 15-year-old running under a fake name probably doesn’t have a very good chance of getting on the ballot anywhere, much less in enough states to be able to win.
I was also ready to gripe that pollsters would pull a stunt like this rather than poll a Libertarian or other like third-party/independent candidate, but then I went back and found that PPP did actually conduct at least some polls with Gary included in 2012.
Mr. Saturn apparently thinks we should instead attack Democrats for doing something we’ve always called for.
As for the idea that Nick has never criticized Hillary, this took two seconds of typing “Nicholas Sarwark Hillary Clinton” into google to find:
http://www.presstv.com/Detail/2015/04/12/405952/US-Democrats-offer-no-new-candidates
Mr. Sarwark easily attacks Mr. Trump but does not attack Hillary Clinton.
This may explain why:
http://amthirdpartyreport.com/2015/08/09/lnc-chair-sarwark-praises-hillary-clinton-in-letter-to-editor/
This is potentially really bad for minor parties looking for a spot in the debates. This survey will be used as a talking point that lowering the polling threshold would open things up to chaos.
I’ve seen a couple of funny memes starting to show up on FB. This is hilarious!
Obviously a rigged poll…they listed Donald Trump twice.