"He entered the race too late" is a pretty poor argument. It implies that one believes one or more of the following:
- That there is some kind of social obligation that a candidate has to run around the country talking to other libertarians in an effort to build support. This should properly be viewed as a tactic, sometimes successful, sometimes not. It should not be viewed as a necessary rite of passage.
- That he lacks necessary campaign infrastructure. This is to some extent true, but actually less true of Amash than of other candidates, since he has far more connections, experience, a larger list and more robust list building capacity.
- That he lacks party loyalty, and that demonstrating loyalty to a political party is a virtue. If you believe this, clearly Amash is not your candidate. He is a guy who chose to do what he thought was right and walk away from the party that put him in office. I admire that, and he has a lot in common with the LP. That's good enough for me. If you think he should demonstrate party loyalty in order to get the nomination, may I suggest you attack him for his disloyalty to the GOP?
Basically, "he entered the race too late" is a poor argument, given the fact that he is demonstrably the best candidate, and given the current state of the race. If you're already attached to another candidate, I get it, but fair warning: if this argument is all you've got, you're in trouble.