Bill Kristol announces someone will run 3rd party UPDATE: It's David French

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

I really don't understand why Bill Kristol et al don't just get behind Johnson/Weld. I mean...they were good enough as Governors for the party, weren't they? Their views really haven't changed all that much. Ballot access in 49 states (and they may have it in OK this year, too).

I could see Kristol thinking something like "but the standard-bearer needs to be chosen by the elite establishment types like us for it to mean anything", but most of the types that'd be likely to vote for an independent conservative are in lock-step with Libertarian economy policy broadly speaking (worried about their personal incomes and levels of taxation, as opposed to those favoring subsidies for their industries and so forth, the latter of which makes up an insignificant sum of voters). They don't care about social issues one way or another for the most part.

Is Kristol still of the persuasion that they're going to be able to throw it to the House? Furthermore, does he believe that the GOP House would screw Trump in such a way when they haven't been willing to man up and attack him throughout this whole ordeal (perpetually until it was too late) or stay the course and try to pull the rug out from under him at the convention?

What makes you think people who would vote for an independent conservative against Trump mostly don't care about abortion or other social controversies?  If someone isn't willing to support Trump, that's likely the sort of issue they are passionate enough about that it would keep them from supporting Hillary either.  There are plenty who fall into this category, especially more educated religious conservatives.

And Kristol is a hawk, he wants someone more willing to be interventionist than Johnson.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

I really don't understand why Bill Kristol et al don't just get behind Johnson/Weld. I mean...they were good enough as Governors for the party, weren't they? Their views really haven't changed all that much. Ballot access in 49 states (and they may have it in OK this year, too).

I could see Kristol thinking something like "but the standard-bearer needs to be chosen by the elite establishment types like us for it to mean anything", but most of the types that'd be likely to vote for an independent conservative are in lock-step with Libertarian economy policy broadly speaking (worried about their personal incomes and levels of taxation, as opposed to those favoring subsidies for their industries and so forth, the latter of which makes up an insignificant sum of voters). They don't care about social issues one way or another for the most part.

Is Kristol still of the persuasion that they're going to be able to throw it to the House? Furthermore, does he believe that the GOP House would screw Trump in such a way when they haven't been willing to man up and attack him throughout this whole ordeal (perpetually until it was too late) or stay the course and try to pull the rug out from under him at the convention?

What makes you think people who would vote for an independent conservative against Trump mostly don't care about abortion or other social controversies?  If someone isn't willing to support Trump, that's likely the sort of issue they are passionate enough about that it would keep them from supporting Hillary either.  There are plenty who fall into this category, especially more educated religious conservatives.

And Kristol is a hawk, he wants someone more willing to be interventionist than Johnson.

With regard to abortion in particular:

1) Because the people who are likely being targeted by such an effort are largely going to be of that persuasion (or at the very least, issues like abortion aren't going to be the main reason they're not supporting Trump).

2) I fully expect the vast majority of single-issue voters regarding abortion - as other assorted evangelicals - to get lock, stock and barrel behind Trump; his history on the subject is no different than Romney's and their history of abandoning key tenets of their religion in pursuit of their partisan and personal worldviews is well-established.

3) The ones who actually would rebel over this/are consistent/aren't hypocrites likely did so in 2012 as well and/or are people who vote third-party fairly often, or who did in the past election at minimum. Therefore and in reality, they are not necessarily the targets of such a campaign that will only serve any meaningful purpose if its goal is to drain votes from Trump (aka Romney 2012 voters, or at least the ones who are rather mainline, moderate, well-off, etc). If they're consistent on the issue, then they were third-party voters 4 years ago as well.

The difference is that Romney's personal life and general behavior was not directly contradictory to their moral views.  Pro-lifers are not generally single issue voters in the sense that you suggest, i.e. that they literally don't care about any other aspect of a candidate's positions or character, but there are many for whom support for abortion rights is still a deal-breaker, meaning a candidate being pro-life on abortion is necessary but not sufficient.