The issue here is that no one is buying the viability of this approach. The only time it got close was a 100% independent, who happened to be a billionaire who had supporters because of competing business interests (Perot).That premise rests on the false assumption that this kind of change can only work bottom-up. However, sometimes change isn't bottom-up, but is top-down. It can work both ways, assuming the ideology is strong and practical enough to make any change at all (and I'm not sure that libertarianism, overall, is).
Using a lame duck POTUS candidate who doesn't even really represent your party very well to effect down ballot access, is like putting the cart before the horse. They need to focus on developing local party Infrastructure first. The only way to do that is gaining both grass roots volunteers, AND business world support.