Amash - Aghast with abortion and immigration but still the most viable candidate.

https://reason.com/podcast/how-justin-amashs-presidential-campaign-changes-the-2020-election/

Assuming Amash gets the LP nomination (and if he doesn't, the LP is worthless), I will whole-heartedly support him, despite my disagreements with him on abortion and immigration. There are three reasons for this:

1. We can't be perfectionists in a world where the other options are Biden and Trump. Whatever Amash's flaws, he's way better than The Rapist Brothers.

2. He's still bound to some degree by the Party platform, and if he's smart, he'll try to avoid the abortion issue. Or at least rightly say "libertarians disagree." Immigration will be harder, but he's still better than the other two, which is enough for me.

3. He's so good on so much else and gives the LP a real chance to be part of the conversation, and appeal to young voters, that dismissing him for his imperfections seems ludicrous. The key here is getting into the debates.

If you want libertarian ideas to be taken seriously, this is your only option.

Regarding the abortion issue, it is as bad as it is plain to see but he's never seemed to priorities it much beyond the obligatory GOP boilerplate. If he gets a mulligan on one thing that has to be it, and it's totally fair that people who prioritise that issue near the top of their list won't support him for that very reason.

As for immigration, I think it would be charitable to say he's been "quietly terrible" on immigration over his legislative career. A lot of people will find it hard to let the immigration thing go; especially as immigration is something the libertarians would want a strong representation for.

That said, Amash has become more pro-liberalisation on immigration consistently over time. He wants to increase legal immigration, he fondly cites his own background as the son of refugees to refute Trump, he's supported some kind of amnesty, he's not held back bashing Trump's bad actions. I'd say he's been willing to accept "yes, secure the border" as part of the grand bargain like most liberalisers have been, and he's more focused on what's achievable than going full open borders.

I also think it's a similar case with his history on same-sex marriage. Yes, if you go back to his early years he talked about it as states rights federalism thing (which,regrettably, lots of libertarians did too) and said he supported DOMA. But then he flipped against DOMA during his second term in Congress, and when Obergefell came down he actually endorsed it as the correct decision saying it was a matter of equal protection. That was a damn sight better than what Massie or Rand had to say about it, and I noted at the time. So I really don't worry that he's a bad on gay rights or is going to veer off the reservation into gross social conservative territory on the topic.