Something I’m calling “identity journalism” has taken over the Democratic primary debates in 2019. Watching the third in a series of who-knows-how-many “debates” among the many contenders for the Democratic presidential nomination, I became aware of something disturbing: The debate moderators—on-air anchors and reporters from ABC News—sorted themselves out into ethnicities and based many of their questions on those identities. Here’s how it played out:

The four moderators were ABC​ News’​ George Stephanopoulos, David Muir, Linsey Davis and Univision’s Jorge Ramos. As the debate [and I use that term very loosely] progressed, Linsey Davis—the African-American moderator—asked the “black questions” about racial inequality, the rise of white supremacy, and institutional racism in America. Jorge Ramos, the Latino moderator, asked the “Hispanic” questions about the candidates’ views on immigration and on Trump’s actions at the U.S.-Mexico border. Stephanopoulous and Muir asked questions that were more “universal,”—the subtext of which is that white is the default, the standard, the non-ethnic.

I don’t know if they talked this strategy over when planning the debate, but it makes me uncomfortable to realize that, apparently, only the black moderator can ask the racial questions, only the Latino moderator can ask the immigration questions, and only the white moderators can ask the “non-ethnic” questions. It’s journalistic stereotyping, and it makes me queasy to watch it.

There’s a similar stratification among candidates and the questions they’re expected to address. Kamala Harris and Corey Booker, almost inevitably through the debates so far, get the racial inequality questions first. They’re people of color so, of course, in the minds of the moderators, they’re the experts on these issues. I’d venture to say that Elizabeth Warren has not been asked very many questions about racial relations, but I’d have to review all of the transcripts to confirm that assertion.

Beto O’Rourke and Julian Castro get the immigration questions. Pete Buttigieg gets the “LGBTQ” questions—and gets a special dispensation to answer “racial” questions because of unrest in South Bend, Indiana, where he is mayor. Sanders, Warren, Biden and Klobuchar get the “white people” questions about healthcare, foreign affairs and taxes, and are left on the sidelines of the “ethnic” issues. I’d like to hear more from them about their views on immigration, gun violence and racial issues, and I’d like to hear more from the others about their views on the more “generic” issues. That may happen, but only, I’m afraid when the field has narrowed considerably.

I want to note, also, that the candidates themselves have aided and abetted this stereotyping by staking out territories that distinguish them from the unwieldy pack of nearly two dozen people who initially sought the Democratic nomination. Kirsten Gillibrand billed herself as the feminist candidate. Tulsi Gabbard was the more conservative military veteran candidate. Tim Ryan identified himself as the working person’s champion. Jay Inslee, John Hickenlooper and Steve Bullock positioned themselves as the get-it-done governors.

But as the field has begun to shrink, not only are candidates disappearing, so is attention to their self-proclaimed territories fading. With no governor on the debate stage, moderators don’t ask questions about the nuts-and-bolts of governing. In the absence of Kirsten Gillibrand, moderators at the third debate didn’t ask a single question about reproductive rights or Me-Too issues. Unions? Workers? The middle class? No Tim Ryan, so no working-guy questions. And if you’d like to hear candidates’ views on what to do about poverty in America’s “booming economy,” fuhgettaboutit: There’s not a “poor person’s candidate” in sight, so who’s going to bother to ask about that?

We are in desperate times. We need real political debate—not the made-for-tv, 60-second answer, try-to-spark-a-feud, issue-stereotyped game show that we are currently seeing.

The post Identity journalism pollutes the Democratic debate stage appeared first on Occasional Planet.

It’s January of 2021 and in spite of a hard fought challenge from incumbent President Donald Trump, Democrats have managed to win the presidency (it was a modest victory, Democrats won Arizona and flipped Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Iowa but still lost Florida, Ohio, and North Carolina). They also netted a few house seats and fought the GOP to a 50-50 draw in the Senate (after a contentious recount in Alabama, Doug Jones was able to be re-elected by a 420 vote margin aided in no small part by a strong 3rd party showing by Roy Moore). But depending on who was elected President, we might still be looking at more campaign still. There are several incumbent office holders running for the White House and if any of them were victorious that would create a vacancy which would need to be filled, so let’s explore what could happen if certain candidates were elected to the Presidency (or Vice-Presidency).

Michael Bennet (US Senator from Colorado)

Bennet had been serving in the US Senate since 2009, when he was appointed by then Gov. Bill Ritter to replace Ken Salazar, who was selected by President Obama to be his Secretary of the Interior. Bennet was elected in his own right in 2010 and re-elected in 2016. It’s unlikely that Bennet will win the Democratic nomination but not impossible. In a 2016 exit interview with the New Yorker, President Barack Obama name-checked Bennet when discussing gifted politicians who could be the future of the party (he also mentioned fellow contenders Kamala Harris and Pete Buttigieg).

If Bennet were elected President, Gov. Jared Polis would appoint a successor who would serve until the end of Bennet’s term (which would be 2022). The front-runner for that position would be Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold, who was elected in 2018 defeating the Republican incumbent. She would be 36 years old in 2021, making her the youngest woman to ever serve in the US Senate, if appointed. That’s if she isn’t already elected in 2020. Keeping the seat might prove more difficult, as midterm elections have proven unkind to whatever party holds the White House, even if Colorado is trending more blue than purple.

Cory Booker (US Senator from New Jersey)

New Jersey is one of the few states in the country that allows candidates to run for President as well as re-election to their current office. So Booker could potentially choose to run both for re-election to the US Senate and the White House. Booker is also an underdog and has not yet seen his poll numbers rise from the mid-single digits. Despite sharing a number of similarities with Pete Buttigieg (Booker was mayor of Newark for 7 years and is also multi-lingual) has not received the same media darling treatment. It seems unlikely now, but Booker could certainly manage to win the nomination.

If Booker were elected President, Gov. Phil Murphy would appoint a replacement who would serve until a special election in November of that year. It’s unclear who Gov. Murphy would choose to succeed Booker, but one possibility is the Governor may choose himself. Gov. Murphy could appoint a ,such as his chief of staff, and then run for the seat himself instead of re-election as Governor. It wouldn’t be without precedentz: When Sen. Robert Byrd died, then-Gov. Joe Manchin appointed his chief legal counsel to temporarily hold the West Virginia senate seat so he could compete for it himself.

Bill de Blasio (Mayor of New York City)

If in every election ended with superlatives for candidates like “most prepared” or “most charisma” or “best hair”, de Blasio would receive the “windmill prize” for running the most Quixotic campaign of 2020. Which is saying quite a lot because we’ve got some real soon to be also-rans running at the moment. Most New Yorkers don’t even like de Blasio, so it’s hard to imagine how he could convince a primary electorate with over a dozen more viable candidates. Of course in defense of de Blasio, Donald Trump has literally never achieved majority support from voter,s yet still vanquished 17 Republicans and Hillary Clinton, proving that if you’ve got the message for the moment anything is possible.

If de Blasio were elected President, the Public Advocate would become mayor. The current holder of that office is Jumaane Williams who ,was endorsed by the Democratic Socialists of America when he unsuccessfully ran for Lt. Gov in 2018. This would mark a pretty big leftward shift in New York politics that might face significant pushback from the party establishmen,t especially since the next election would be just 10 months into Williams’ term.

Kirsten Gillibrand (US Senator from New York)

If Corey Booker’s polling performance has been somewhat underwhelming, Kirsten Gillibrand’s has been downright anemic. In many polls Gillibrand polls at 0% and others she polls at 1%, which is hard to explain, considering she represents one of the largest states in the nation and has the most anti-Trump voting record in the Senate. There are some Democrats who don’t support Gillibrand because of the Al Franken debacle in 2017, but one would assume Gillibrand would find a natural constituency among women in the part,y especially those focused on issues related to the #MeToo movement. However, that support has yet to present itself, but with so many candidates it’s still possible for Gillibrand to make headway.

If Gillibrand were elected President, Gov. Cuomo would make an appointment, who would serve until a special election in November of that year. There is a deep bench of candidates for possible appointment, including Chelsea Clinton, who seems to have an interest in public office, Caroline Kennedy, who was almost appointed to replace Hillary Clinton in 2009, and of course Gov. Cuomo may want the seat himself, as opposed to a 4th term as Governor. Regardless, that appointee would serve until 2024. 

Kamala Harris (US Senator from California)

If anyone on this list is going to be, it’s probably going to be Kamala Harris. Thinking about “What If” with many other these other candidates is a purely academic exercise, because they probably won’t be President. I would be somewhat surprised if Harris was not the nominee. Her politics are not necessarily my ,but her election would just seem like the natural progression of an increasingly progressive, coastal, and diverse Democratic Party. According to Nate Silver, Harris probably also has the most political upside as it relates to creating a base. Of course nothing is guaranteed, sometimes the seemingly obvious choice never really catches on with voters no matter how many times the media says they should (see Marco Rubio in 2016). Assuming the field isn’t steamrolled by former Vice President Joe Biden, Harris could be the front runner.

If Harris were elected President, Gov. Gavin Newsom would make an appointment, who would serve until at least the end of her term in 2022. California is full of Democrats, and the field is wide open for possible replacements.

• Mayor Eric Garcetti of Los Angeles
• Kevin de Leon, candidate for US Senate in 2018
• Attorney General Xavier Becerra
• George Clooney
• Ro Khanna
• Katie Hill
• Ted Lieu
• Mayor Sam Liccardo of San Jose
• Mayor London Breed of San Francisco
• Senator Barbara Boxer (As a caretaker)
  

Amy Klobuchar (US Senator from Minnesota)

Amy Klobuchar is probably not going to be President. Her fundraising has been anemic (40% was senate campaign transfers), her polling has been unimpressive, and she is attempting to appeal to a general election audience which is much more moderate than a Democratic primary. Perhaps if Joe Biden and a dozen others weren’t running,she’d be formidable, but a number of stories relating to her treatment of staff and consuming salad with combs probably have damaged her campaign beyond repair. However Klobuchar has proven herself to be effective at communicating with rural voters and her home state neighbors Iowa, so it’s entirely possible that she understands those voters better than anyone else running and therefore might surprise by the time the caucus rolls around.

If Klobuchar were elected President, Gov. Tim Walz would appoint a replacement who would serve at least until a special election in November of that year. Attorney General Keith Ellison would be an obvious choice, but it’s unclear whether the moderate Walz would appoint the progressive or if Ellison who only recently left DC would want to return so soon if ever (Ellison also faced serious scandals in 2018). Walz might also consider his Lt. Gov Peggy Flannigan or freshman Rep. Angie Craig.

Bernie Sanders (US Senator from Vermont)

The election of Bernie Sanders would represent the realization of 100 years of movement socialism in the United States which began in earnest with the presidential candidacy of Eugene V. Debs from prison. Unlike the UK and other democracies, the US never developed a true labor party to represent the interests of the working class. The Democratic party still exists in large part to defend neo-colonial interests abroad and corporate interests at home, only distinguishable from the Republican Party in its rejection of white supremacy. Because Bernie Sanders is not a Democrat and does not pretend to be concerned with promoting the center-left agenda of the Democratic establishment, he is facing some audacious resistance from party elites as well as some rank-and-file voters. Unless Sanders can inspire non-voters and independents to support him in the primary, he will almost certainly not be the nominee, because he has become a factional candidate. However he has shown an ability to compete, and his 2016 campaign as well as current fundraising totals serve as evidence.

If Sanders were elected President, the Governor would appoint a successor to serve until a special election could be called, which would be “within 3 months following vacancy”. Because gubernatorial terms in Vermont are two years instead of four, the incumbent Governor Phil Scott, who is a Republican, would be up for re-election in 2020, and either he or a Democratic successor would choose Sanders’ replacement. The party of Sanders’ replacement is functionally irrelevant because should Sanders become President, he’d almost certainly face opposition within his own party in addition to congressional Republicans. Institutional support simply does not exist for Sanders, and his legislative priorities would be stymied. It’s likely that Sanders’ eventual replacement would be either Lt. Gov. David Zuckerman who, like Sanders, is not a Democrat (Zuckerman is a member of the left-wing progressive party) or current Rep. Peter Welch.

Elizabeth Warren (US Senator from Massachusetts)

Elizabeth Warren is having a political moment, and it could snowball into something larger if she plays her cards right. Warren is currently polling third behind Biden and Sanders according to the RealClearPolitics polling average, and rising. Warren has been doing something radical the last few months: creating policies and talking about them in detail. This has been unique in a campaign that has been full of non-specific generalities, broad ideas, and platitudes by other candidates.

If Warren were elected President, her Senate seat would almost certainly be occupied by a Republican for somewhere between “145-160 day,s” according to the Massachusetts statute on filling vacancies. The Governor of Massachusetts is Charlie Baker, a Republican re-elected in 2018 who would be assigned the task of choosing a replacement for a President Warren. This would seriously undermine Warren’s legislative priorities for the first 100 days of her presidency because Mitch McConnell would maintain his position as majority leader and would without a doubt continue his long record of obstruction. It’s hard to imagine what Warren could get done without the Senate and harder still to imagine a successful first term after being robbed of the massive cache of political capital usually afforded to presidents. As for eventual successors, the clearest choice of the party is probably Rep. Joe Kennedy III, whose political star is on the rise.

The post If a Democrat wins the presidency in 2020, what happens to their old office? appeared first on Occasional Planet.

We need public financing. And we need it immediately.

When I began my very long-shot campaign for the Democratic party’s nomination in Missouri’s 2^nd Congressional district, I knew that my campaign would concentrate on political reform. I spoke ad nauseam whenever I had the chance about our need for fundamental reform across elections, ethics, and, in particular, the way we fund our campaigns.

I went into this campaign already convinced that money was a corrupting influence that we should not ignore. My experience across the 216 days I campaigned only solidified my already strong opinion that money is a corruption and that political reform must be our priority.

In fact, money isn’t just an ordinary run-of-the-mill corruption, it’s a catastrophic corruption. The 2018 Democratic primary in Missouri’s 2^nd District proves it.

Cort VanOstran was a fine candidate. He worked hard. He campaigned with passion and conviction. You can say he deserved to win the Democratic nomination. But you can’t say that he deserved to win by as much as he did. Nor can you say that the process was fair.

His campaign had a lot of things going for it. But the tragedy that we can’t ignore is that only one of those things really mattered: the amount of money he was able to raise – an amount that dwarfed the amount raised by this closest competitor, Mark Osmack.

By the time the August 7^th primary was held, the battle for money wasn’t even close.

Cort raised and spent a little more than $800,000. Mark was only able to raise a quarter of that.

Both Cort and Mark announced their candidacies over a year earlier –  in the summer of 2017. But after just a couple of months, the winner was already crowned. Cort had won the most important primary of all, the “money primary.”

Recall, by the way, that there was another very popular candidate in this race, Kelli Dunaway. As the only woman running for the Democratic nomination, Kelli should have been a favorite. But after just a few months of campaigning, Kelli dropped out. Chief among her reasons for her exit, “I was getting my ass kicked in fundraising.” (her words).

Those early numbers are pretty shocking. By the time Kelli dropped out (November 2017), Cort had already raised over $200,000. This included 20 donations from contributors donating the maximum amount, $2700. And 71 individuals contributing over $1000!

Compare that to Kelli. At the time of her withdrawal, Kelli had raised just 18% as much as Cort (about $38,000). That included only three maximum contributors and 10 contributions of over $1000.

Mark’s numbers at that point were even worse. Four months after starting his campaign, Mark had raised a paltry 8% of what Cort had (about $16,000). This included just one $2700 individual contribution and only two donations of over $1000.

Let’s not fool ourselves. Cort won by as much as he did because he was able to do what Mark and the other candidates couldn’t: advertise on TV and bombard mailboxes with campaign literature. Only he had contributors with that kind of money.

Two fine candidates. But only one had the finances to significantly amplify his message.  Two fine candidates. But only one had the means to thoroughly advertise throughout the district. Two fine candidates. But given these differences, only one had any real chance to win.

Three days into my campaign a Missouri Democratic party leader approached me and told me to drop out. One month later, that same party leader approached Mark and strongly encouraged him to drop out. Mark’s supporters weren’t as generous with their ActBlue donations as Cort’s. And to the Missouri Democratic party, that was a high crime that deserved impeachment.

Please don’t misconstrue my point. I know that Cort was a fine candidate who worked tirelessly. But the same can be said of Mark. Shouldn’t both men have been given an equal opportunity to make their cases?

As a candidate myself in this race I enjoyed a front-row seat to the campaigns of both Cort and Mark. They worked their rears off! They each had great ideas. And they each attracted a large number of passionate supporters to their ranks. But what I learned most from my experience is that the passion of one’s supporters isn’t important if those supporters are not wealthy. In this corrupted process, we’re fooling ourselves when we talk about passion. The wealth of one’s campaign contributors is what matters overwhelmingly.

Cort didn’t crush Mark because he was a superior candidate. He crushed Mark because he had a lot more wealth on his side. The nomination wasn’t won by Cort. It was purchased.

I pity the American that doesn’t see the tragic injustice in that and who doesn’t want to do something about it.

And let’s not fool ourselves into thinking that the amount of money that you raise is a direct reflection of your hard work, perseverance, or some other heavenly virtue. Yes, you have to work hard to raise money and I’m sure Cort worked tremendously hard.

But Cort raised and spent FOUR times more than Mark. Does anyone really think Cort worked FOUR times harder than Mark? Does anyone believe that his ideas were FOUR times more popular than Mark’s? Is there anyone that can legitimately argue that Cort’s supporters were FOUR times more passionate than Mark’s? Does anyone who paid close attention to this campaign think that Cort deserved FOUR times the opportunity to win?

Most troubling is this question: How much of Cort’s fundraising superiority was a product of unique external factors – factors not available to Mark or other candidates? Factors related to Cort’s position in a prestigious law firm and his connections with Democratic party insiders? Factors that blocked Mark and Kelli from the same resources necessary to get their message across to voters? Mark and Kelli didn’t know the secret handshake. And for that, their campaigns were doomed.

The Public Financing Solution

The Democratic primary in MO-2 proved our process is tragically unfair. Nothing will change until we demand real reform. And that is where public financing comes in. I’ve never been more convinced of this.

Imagine a system where qualified candidates are given an equal opportunity to make their cases. A system that rewards candidates that work hard but doesn’t show favoritism to those that just happen to have access to wealthy contributors. A system that says that the candidate that has the support of those that give $27 contributions should be taken as seriously as the candidate that is the darling of those that can make $2700 contributions.

In such a system, each of the candidates would be allowed to prove their viability by going out and raising “seed money” – thus demonstrating their seriousness. Taxpayers would grant qualifying candidates with vouchers that would allow them the opportunity to broadcast TV commercials and to send out mass mailings.

Candidates that would want to forego public financing and raise and spend money the old fashioned way would still be allowed to. But candidates without those same deep-pocketed enablers would now be given more of a fighting chance. Public financing levels the playing field.

Imagine the 2018 Democratic primary again but under a public financing system. Mark and Kelli would probably have still been outspent – but with public financing, they would have had a much greater opportunity to compete with Cort.

Given the passion that I saw in their supporters and the vigor I saw in their campaigns, this was an opportunity Mark and Kelli deserved – an opportunity that was cheated them in our current system.

Wealthy Americans should be afforded many privileges in America. But a monopoly to determine which candidates are viable and which are not, should not be one of them. Public financing gives qualified candidates with great ideas but without wealthy connections a chance to compete.

Most importantly, a public financing system would change our political campaigns for the better; transforming them from the farces for funding that they’ve become and into the contests of character and position that true democratic republics require.

The post What I learned about Campaign Financing When I ran for Congress appeared first on Occasional Planet.

On a noisy Thursday morning, members of the Occasional Planet team met with Robert Hazel. Hazel is running for Representative in Missouri’s 2nd Congressional district, and he does not have high expectations for the outcome of the race. He says, “…in the unlikely event that I get the Democratic nomination, I’m going to demand a recount, because something’s terribly, terribly wrong.”

Although Hazel does not have high hopes for winning, he feels that it is important to stay in the race. He says his viewpoint as an “old fashioned, new deal Democrat” is one that needs to be heard and that he has supporters who agree. Hazel argues that the Democratic party needs to be the party for everyone who wants to be a Democrat, and that “… everyone who doesn’t like what’s going on has to vote for the Democrats no matter who they are.” By running, he feels he is promoting the idea that there is room within the party for all levels of left-leaners. “Vote blue, no matter who, all the way through,” seems to be a slogan close to his heart, especially when speaking about this race.

Hazel’s background is in the nonprofit sector, organizational management, and resource development. He touts a 40-year career in these areas. He also worked in the Peace Corps and was stationed in Korea. “… I was in the Peace Corps in Korea and volunteered to get out of doing my daily job to man a table for the Korean Lung Association… But that made me realize that volunteerism… this was something that I wanted to do.” Clearly, he still feels a pull toward public service, despite the challenges he faces in his everyday life.

Unfortunately, Hazel has stage 4 esophageal cancer. He says he is managing it well, and that he feels strong. Despite this, he argues that the current climate renders it impossible for him not to run.

“…It was the Charlatan in Chief. We elected a deep cover sleeper agent of the former Soviet Union, with a question mark, or at least their dupe or stooge, as President of the United States, and that was like, ‘That’s it. That’s it for me.’ I’ve long since been wary or convinced that we have reached the end of the road with what conservatism as a political philosophy can do for us in any kind of positive manner.”

He has been disappointed by every president to come out of his generation, and is ready for some positive change.

On the issues, Hazel is progressive. Two of the issues he puts at the top of the docket are Medicare-for-All and abortion. He also mentioned the need for a massive infrastructure overhaul.

 “It’s certain basic services. That idea, that everyone gets certain basic services, and if you want more than that, you have to pay for it. If you can’t pay for it, maybe somebody will help you with that or otherwise, it’s too bad.”

Hazel calls himself a “recovering Methodist.” He says that the state should not meddle in the affairs of women.

“…‘I’m not in favor of abortion. I don’t think anyone’s in favor of abortion, but somebody has to decide, and I don’t think that’s the state’s responsibility.’ It’s interesting, Republicans want to have freedom except for when it comes to that. Somebody has to decide, and it oughtn’t be me.”

He feels that time and time again the GOP has let down the average person with their votes against healthcare, and votes to restrict abortion

Hazel is also fed up about taxes.

“First of all, clean up all the crap that’s going on about our tax system…My wife is in sales. She can now write off an awful lot of things… But I think we need to have some sort of system to where, no, you can’t write off the amount, you can only write off up to a certain amount.”

He also feels that there should be a “citizen’s tithe” which would be similar to a flat tax based on adjusted gross income where there are no deductions, but subsidies exist.

Overall, Hazel is a solid candidate. He has qualifications and a love of public service. Truly, he seems like a man with nothing to lose by running. He has no obligations to any PACs or establishment organizations and is not tied down by anyone. He has no connections to any big money and has not even had to file with the FEC. If you want a candidate who is unwavering in his beliefs, committed to service, and listens to his constituents, Robert Hazel is your man.

The post Robert Hazel: New Deal Democrat appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Missouri has produced great people who are a credit to our state and are known for their legacy of public service. Towering figures like Harry Truman, John Danforth, Thomas Eagleton, Dick Gephardt, Mel Carnahan, and Stuart Symington who’ve undeniably contributed in a meaningful way. Objectively speaking, great Missourians who we can all be proud of. Congresswoman Ann Wagner [R-MO CD 2] is not one of those great Missourians. Perhaps there was a time she could’ve been, but the Faustian bargain she has made with Donald Trump has divested her of whatever dignity she could’ve hoped to muster after what was an already lackluster congressional career.

In October 2016, Ann Wagner had the chance to stand on the right side of history with essentially no consequences. Donald Trump had just been heard on audio describing the ease at which he could commit sexual assault because “When you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. Grab ’em by the pussy. You can do anything.” Wagner was running for re-election in a not especially competitive congressional district (which is true no longer) and had staked her career on fighting human sex trafficking. Wagner had every reason and arguably every responsibility to speak out against this candidate whose entire being dripped with misogyny.

She did speak out for those very reasons:

As a strong and vocal advocate for victims of sex trafficking and assault, I must be true to those survivors and myself and condemn the predatory and reprehensible comments of Donald Trump, I withdraw my endorsement and call for Governor Pence to take the lead.

This was a bold statement from a sitting congresswoman and could’ve been something that her constituents, many of them women, could’ve been proud of…it she hadn’t reneged on her position less than a month later.

Wagner, days before the election, appeared on disgraced St. Louis conservative Jamie Allman’s radio program to declare:

I have always been voting for Donald Trump, and I will do that next Tuesday, and I encourage everyone listening to vote for Trump as well.” She continued, “I don’t know why there has been some, perhaps some confusion here, but since last May, after Donald Trump released his list of Supreme Court justices, I made it clear that I am voting for Donald Trump. I want an entire ticket sweep up and down.

Since the 2016 election, Wagner has missed no opportunity to appear beside the President at bill signings and public events. Wagner’s sycophantic praises of the Trump administration, as well as the way she has clung to the McConnell/Trump agenda is baffling, considering there were about 177 GOP-held seats that gave the President a larger margin of victory than he received in Missouri’s 2nd. Therefore, it stands to reason that Wagner has tied herself to President Trump (voting with his position 96.6% of the time) because she thinks her constituents can be placated simply by the fact that she’s a die-hard Trump Republican. Wagner seems to have this notion that she doesn’t have to lower herself and meet with her constituents because (a) her conservative record inspires fundraisers, and (b) she thinks it’s enough to just be a reliable Republican vote and not necessarily represent the diverse views of the district.

In her three terms as a congresswoman, Wagner has never held a town hall meeting and has refused to debate democratic opponents. Her absence is so noticeable in the district that it has become an ongoing joke with all the Democratic candidates currently vying for the democratic nomination. One candidate, Cort VanOstran, frequently posts “Where’s Ann?” followed by his daily schedule declaring that voters can always find out “Where’s Cort.” Which is admittedly corny, but it wouldn’t work if Wagner didn’t have such a major communication problem. It’s a criticism that has stuck, at the Webster Groves 4^th of July parade, Wagner made a very brief appearance but didn’t appear at the end of the parade route. At the Gateway Arch re-opening, Wagner arrived for the ribbon cutting but was gone very soon after. When she does address voters, it’s exclusively at Republican township meetings and not the open forums that even notoriously reticent politicians like Mitch McConnell attend.

Wagner may not know it yet; however, I suspect she does after the release of her most recent ad that is intended to “re-introduce her to voters” (a problem she wouldn’t have if she showed up, but this election will likely be the fight of her political life.) It has always been true in politics that representatives shouldn’t forget the people who sent them to Washington, because it will eventually come back to haunt them. That’s true in not traditionally competitive states like Indiana, where Sen. Richard Lugar lost a Republican primary because of votes to confirm Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court and to support the DREAM ACT. It’s even more true at the congressional level: Remember that Eric Cantor was defeated in his primary and lost his chance to become Speaker of the House. Wagner occupies a seat that is about 9% more Republican leaning than the nation as a whole, and several independent agencies have rated Missouri’s 2nd as competitive. Ann Wagner will not be defeated in her primary, but her lack of connection with her constituents and loyalty to a man whom 45% of Missourians (many in her own suburban district) disapprove of in a year of democratic energy If I worked for the Missouri GOP I’d start reading the writing on the wall.

The post Ann Wagner: Missouri Congresswoman in absentia appeared first on Occasional Planet.

When we sat down with Bill Haas last week, he said in no uncertain terms, “I’m going to win this one. It’s not going to be pretty.” It was delivered with a confidence that left us taken aback, but through our conversation we came to get a better understanding of why Haas is running, and it’s deeper than politics.

If you live in Missouri, and the name Bill Haas sounds familiar to you, it should. You’re bound to have seen him on your ballot a number of times, once for Lieutenant Governor, other times for mayor or congress or the state house and even once for alderperson, if you live in Lyda Krewson’s former ward. But don’t be mistaken: Haas has run a lot of campaigns (apparently at least 21), but he is not a perennial candidate, and he resents the moniker. Haas says perennial candidates don’t win and, to his credit, Haas has won a number of times. In 2008, he beat out a crowded field of Democrats to become the nominee for Missouri’s 2nd Congressional District, and he’s been re-elected a number of times to the St. Louis City school board. This year however, Haas is once again chasing the white whale that has evaded him so many times before: a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives. The race is in some ways an attempt to get lightning to strike twice, since it’s in the Missouri 2nd, the same district where Haas won the nomination a decade before.

Whoever clinches the Democratic nomination is going to be a significant underdog in the general election. Incumbent Republican Ann Wagner has millions of dollars at her disposal in a district already drawn to give Republicans a partisan advantage of +8% (meaning the district is 8% more Republican leaning than the nation as a whole). But in a year of historic democratic turnout that some tenuously suggest is building to a blue wave, this may be the year the district finally flips.

Based on his social media and previous profiles in local periodicals, Haas seemed to be an eccentric character who relished fights with journalists and made off-color statements about current events. But the Haas we sat down with was more soft-spoken and thoughtful, and there was a refreshing quality about his sincerity in his ability and his beliefs.

Haas isn’t originally from St. Louis; he was born into a Jewish family in Shaker Heights, Ohio. After he graduated high school he went to Yale as a Phi Beta Kappa in the same freshman class as former. Sec. of State John Kerry. After Yale, he moved on to Harvard Law, but the transition was difficult.

Haas talked about the major depression he suffered during that period that caused him to drop out of law school. Later, he would return because he was advised that, “I could come back if I dropped out. It would be harder to come back if I flunked out.”

In the years that followed, Haas served in Detroit in VISTA, hitch-hiked across the country, ended up in New Orleans to interview for a position in Mayor Moon Landrieu’s administration. He didn’t become political until the early 70s, “I wasn’t married yet, I didn’t have that kind of fulfillment, law was boring but intellectually challenging,” he said. “So, I started working in campaigns, and one of the ones I worked in was Dennis Kucinich when he got elected mayor in ‘77. That’s when I really became politically ambitious.”

That part about not being married: there was once a woman in Haas’s life. To understand Haas is to also understand that his quest for political success is only eclipsed by his quest for companionship. I won’t be able to do it justice, so I’ll let Haas tell it in his own words:

“So, the woman I fell in love with in ’78. I met her at a dance club. I asked, do you dance?… She said, a little. She’d been going to New York dance clubs since she was 16 because that’s where the music was. So, she was the best dancer I’d ever seen. The first weekend after we met, we went campaigning. I was running for precinct committee person. I think. It was a lower income area. and she was walking up the stairs in her heels. I think, I don’t remember exactly. At some point I said when are we getting married? And she said when you give up politics and we go to the suburbs and have a good life. We fell in love, but we didn’t get married. The idea of falling in love with somebody who cares about you but not about politics…. Pam and I never got together. Though I waited 20 years for her come around and she’s married one or two people since.”

The rest is history. Haas moved to St. Louis as a corporate lawyer in 1988, met the residency requirement to run for mayor in 1995, and he’s been running ever since.

We asked Haas about his platform for this campaign, and it was actually quite extensive. Haas wants to be known as the “education congressperson,” and the central tenet of his campaign is early childhood education. Haas believes that we need a federally funded, trillion-dollar early-childhood-education program. “We’re going to find a way to get money for early childhood education,” he said.  “Nothing is more important. That’s where crime comes from, and that’s where our educated workforce will come from.” Haas sees a clear link between the societal ills that plague this country and a broken education system. “In the longer run, my solution for poverty and racism is good, quality education.”

There’s also a unique idea that Haas has put at the forefront of his campaign, a combination of public service announcements and a hotline that would exist for the purpose of violence prevention. Haas says, “That’s the mental health piece that should cut across political boundaries. It’s not about gun control.” We asked why include public service announcements.  Haas said, “The missing piece is telling people we care about them and that we love them, and that if they call, we’re going to do more than just give them some meds and lock them in a room and tell them therapy.”

On every other issue, Haas was fairly progressive. He supports the efforts by Moms Demand Action and the Parkland Students to achieve common sense gun control. He believes in protecting entitlements and is vehemently opposed to work requirements for Medicaid. He’d support raising the contribution cap, not the age of retirement to make Social Security solvent. He’s passionate about ending the abuses of factory farming (Haas is an animal lover who has had 24 animal companions over the years). When it comes to dealing with corporations, he believes that we should end “corporate welfare” and pass laws to fight automation.  “if you’re going to lay off because of automation, you have to give the people you’re laying off a fair severance, and if you can’t afford to do that then we have a problem,” he said.

Haas’s position on the Israel-Palestine conflict is rather bold for a Democrat, and he went on at length about his thoughts. Here are the most important bits:

“As a Jewish person, I’m glad that my people have a homeland but…Palestinians living in camps with open sores for generations can’t possibly be God’s plan. That’s not the reason for all the terrorism, but it certainly doesn’t help any. We need a Marshall plan for the Palestinians. We can’t define the peace process, but we can try to drive it. Settlements are part of it. My bill that I’m going to propose, I’ll lose the Jewish vote for a while, but you either want to do good or you don’t. if Israel won’t agree with a plan over 10 years to dismantle the settlements, or give Palestinians equivalent land, then I’m going to put a bill in to cut the aid to Israel in half and use it to fund Palestinian development in Gaza and the West Bank. People living in Gaza, horrendous conditions as we know. That’s not good for anybody. Israel is finally beginning to help people in Gaza. This was in the last month. Some sort of economic thing. That should resonate. I don’t want to be a demagogue, but I really believe in this stuff.”

So, you may ask yourself, why is Haas running and why does he run even in the face of seemingly insurmountable odds again and again?

When we asked Haas about what keeps him going, he got misty eyed. He paused for quite a bit, because it was clearly very emotional for him. As a tear rolled down his cheek. Haas said, “You don’t always gets your dreams. and the reason I want to be in public service is, my dream is to be in public service to help other people’s more simple dreams come true.”  There’s also a spiritual element to Haas’s thinking, “I long thought I had some gifts for public service and I don’t think god would’ve given me them if she didn’t expect me to find a place to use them. So, it would be disrespectful to her and to myself to give up.”

It seemed to all of us that Haas had sacrificed more than most to run for office, potentially fulfilling careers, personal relationships, quite a bit of money and perhaps a life that would have borne more fruit than the one he’s lived so far. So, for Haas, to finally be elected to such a significant office would be more than electoral victory, it would be the event that brought meaning to the life he’s built around chasing this goal.

Haas believes that he can win this primary because of his name recognition, his heavy use of radio ads, and most importantly, his ideas. There has not been any polling of this race, but I’ve yet to meet a person other than Haas that shares his optimism. The odds seem somewhat long due to the quality of candidates that this cycle has produced, who are younger and better funded than Haas. Some people are willing to write Haas off, but I actually believe that there is possibly a path to victory for him. That being said, I don’t know who the nominee will be and I would genuinely be surprised if it were Haas.

All things considered, Haas is a serious candidate and he deserves a serious look. You can learn more about his positions at http://voteHaashaas.com, and his book Pink Collar Blue is available on Amazon.

The post Bill Haas: Optimistic candidate in a long-shot bid for Congress appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Noga Sachs is a candidate for Missouri’s 2^nd Congressional District in the upcoming Republican primary. She’s running against long-time incumbent Ann Wagner. Recently, I was part of a group that interviewed Sachs about her views. [The interview was part of an internship project sponsored by Civitas, a St. Louis non-profit that encourages young people to become civically engaged.] While we definitely did background research (including watching her jogging to a gym video discussing birth control), we didn’t expect our conversations to be as full as they were. From her past to her purpose as a politician, Sachs is full of heart.

Many Republicans are hostile to Sachs and worry her red politics may be more blue than they thought. Some refer to her candidacy as a “trojan horse, ” and she says that that label has contributed to her limited media coverage, The GOP even attempted to kick her out of events, and, she said, one leader said to her face that “there is no other candidate here [other than Ann Wagner]”. Plus, she claims that her rivals are trying to mix up her name to make her lose.They substitute  “Noah” for Noga, and all of a sudden voters can’t find her name in the media. Clearly, this candidate faces a lot of obstacles in the upcoming primary.

Parkland was a pivotal moment for Sachs, who was working in South America when it happened. Although she had never before been civically involved, the shootings motivated her to return to the U.S. to join other people working for political change. Realizing that Ann Wagner was up for re-election, uncontested, Sachs saw an opportunity.

Sachs calls her brother her “moral guiding light” for her political involvement He is a Democrat, and at first, she listened blindly to his opinions. After a while, though, Sachs says, “I realized that both sides are guilty of a lot of really not nice things.” However, when asked about why she is running as a Republican, she did not offer an immediate answer. [Editor’s note: In a post-interview phone call, Sachs said that she was running as a Republican because she sees Republicans as more organized in their approach to policies and legislation.] Her claim to “no labels” is somewhat misleading, since she, is in fact, running under the very red Republican label.

Red doesn’t mean, however, that Sachs couldn’t vote for Hillary, oppose Ann Wagner, and criticize Trump. She’s done all of those things, actually, and she’s proud of it. To her, Democrats protect freedom of choice, but “it ends up sort of this capitalistic sort of orientation, whereas the Republicans say…they’re protecting morals,” she says.

One of her strongest opinions centers around Israel, from which her parents emigrated. Her eyes were filled with passion as she discussed the topic without even being prompted. To her, Jerusalem is the obvious choice for the U.S. embassy. “It’s a completely laughable thing that anybody talked about putting the embassy outside the capital,” she says. “That’s just impractical, it just doesn’t make any sense. The capital of Israel is Jerusalem.”

Sachs’ pro-Israel stance coincides with some of her other more conservative leanings, and her passions (red or blue) don’t stop there.

On campaign financing, Sachs says, “You shouldn’t be extravagant during your campaign if you’d like to indicate that you’re going to be responsible with tax dollars.” That commitment to financial responsibility would work well for her, she says, because “I’m seeing a lot of people who are looking for a fresh face, looking for an honest person, an authentic person.”  And, when asked about avoiding corruption, Sachs notes that she is self-employed, making her financially independent.

Some of Sachs’ stances are a little more vague. She calls pro-choice and pro-life “too late,” stating that she thinks intervention should happen before a pregnancy ever occurs.

“Insemination education” is the best solution, she says, because it avoids  uncomfortable feelings around sex-education while still teaching about safe-sex practices. When asked about how to implement those plans when in Washington, though, Sachs did not offer specific solutions.

Sachs emphasized the need to have open lines of communication with her district at all times. “How can I bring home groceries if I don’t know you needed bacon?” she says.

On gun control, she says that taking away one gun would lead you to find another. To her, the answer is not gun control but, instead, culture change. [Editor’s note: After the interview, Sachs stated that she is an expert on culture change, giving her special perspective and know-how.]

With all of these policy issues, it’s hard to imagine anything happening without bipartisan action. Sachs’s solution: “Talk to people on both sides. Figure out what matters to them, and figure out where those two intersect. And then bring the two together. And actually what I’ve been doing…is exactly that. So I talked to Democrats, they love me. They’re willing to pick up the red ticket and vote for me. I’m flattered. I talk to Republicans and they’re also willing to do the same. We’re all on same page, we all want to get Ann out.”

Sachs reaches across party lines, listens to her voters, attends events, and blurs the blue and red lines into a nice, even purple. Sachs’ views are optimistic and hopeful. She wants to push for a change of culture. “’We need to re-establish a culture which is pro-social. One which enables us to live together, thrive together, work together,” she says.

While she admits to a lack of political experience, she makes up for it with gusto and heart. She said, in closing, “The number one thing is we need to be working together, and I love that you guys are working together on making this country a better place, and it’s not just a better place for me or for you, but it’s a better for place for us.”

Sachs clearly has the best intentions for her constituents and for democracy. Her work across party lines is a clear model for how politics should be able to function. With Trump in the White House, and a never-ending stream of polarized media coverage, it is easy to see how America could be leaving behind the moderates in a storm of extremist opinions. What hope do we have left for people who are (like the majority of America) moderate? In Sachs, we may have found a candidate who can navigate that predicament in a polarized world, where she claims her only labels are the four on her birth certificate: “Noga Chana Louis Sachs.”

The post Purple politics in Missouri’s CD2: Noga Sachs appeared first on Occasional Planet.

The Democratic party should be gearing up–right now–to completely revamp the presidential primary system. Of the many things that went horribly wrong in the 2016 Presidential election cycle, one of the fundamentals was the major parties’ system for deciding on their presidential nominees.

Our current presidential primary system is a disaster for political discourse, for serious candidates, and for our democracy. Just listen to what passes for political debate—particularly among the 2016 crop of Republican primary candidates—and you have all the evidence you need. For candidates, it’s all about proving that they are more right-wing conservative than the next person. And it’s all in pursuit of the brass ring of winning the earliest primaries/caucuses in the most conservative states: Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina.

And that, right there, is the problem. Because of the structure of the primary cycle, front-loaded with these ultra-conservative states, candidates feel compelled to tailor their messages to extreme right, because that’s who is motivated to come out for the caucuses and primaries. In addition, the early states have no big cities, so candidates do not feel the need to talk about the issues that concern urban dwellers: No mention of Ferguson, Black LIves Matter, Flint’s poisoned water system, etc.  They are interested only in pandering to the narrow concerns of rural and small-town voters, because their votes are the ones they need to build momentum for the rest of the crazy primary season.

So, what’s the solution? A total re-think of the way we determine the presidential nominees from each party.

Want to “repeal and replace” something? Let’s put that energy into coming up with something completely different.
I’m not proposing that we go back to the smoke-filled rooms of yore, when party bosses decided who the candidates would be, without any input from the electorate. [There is, however, a strong whiff of a new kind of party-boss smoke out there. It comes from the Koch Brothers, Sheldon Adelson, Missouri’s billionaire would-be-kingmaker Rex Sinquefield, , and other super-wealthy men. They’re spending huge sums of money to push their personal agendas by buying politicians and funding their campaigns. But let’s put that aspect of our current system aside, for the moment, and look at other alternatives.]

Many people have said that a better structure would consist of a series of regional primaries. But before I get to that—and some of the other ideas that have been floating over the years, here is…

A brief history of primaries

It’s easy to think that the current primary structure is a built-in part of American political history, and, therefore, is not to be tinkered with—you know, that whole “originalist,” traditionalist thing. It’s not. Neither political parties nor primary elections are included in the U.S. Constitution: Primaries evolved over time, invented by political parties. There were primaries in some states in the early 1800s, but they were mostly non-binding, and they gave way to the party-boss system by the mid-1800s.

The current system of binding primaries [in which delegates are required to vote for their state’s nominee in the first round of voting at the national convention] is actually rather new.

According to Wikipedia:

The impetus for national adoption of the binding primary election was the chaotic 1968 Democratic National Convention. Vice President Hubert Humphrey secured the nomination despite not winning a single primary under his own name. After this, a Democratic National Committee-commissioned a panel led by Senator George McGovern –that recommended that states adopt new rules to assure wider participation.

A large number of states, faced with the need to conform to more detailed rules for the selection of national delegates, chose a presidential primary as an easier way to come into compliance with the new national Democratic Party rules. The result was that many more future delegates would be selected by a state presidential primary. The Republicans also adopted many more state presidential primaries.

Iowa and New Hampshire

The now-all-important Iowa caucus began just 40 years ago. The New Hampshire primaries began 60 years ago, and they have become the center of attention in the battle to nominate the Republican and Democratic Presidential candidates. It’s obvious that the current system is terribly skewed, front-loaded with rural states that represent a tiny fraction of the ultimate number of delegates, and whose issues and preferences do not remotely represent the mainstream of American political discourse.

Resistance to change

But changing the system has proven to be a Sisyphean task, because states love going first and don’t want to surrender the advantages first-ness brings—even if sharing in a regional primary would be better for the common good of our electoral system and democracy.

Elected officials, political scientists, pundits, party leaders and many others—although I doubt that the list includes many state party chairpeople–have suggested alternative systems. The Congressional Record is littered with failed proposals going back decades. You can look ‘em up: 1980, 1985, 1991, 2007, 2011 for example. But, for what it’s worth, here are some current ideas:

Alternatives to the current presidential primary system

Fix The Primaries offers a handy summary of a range of alternatives–the links take you to helpful infographics with more detail. Solutions–some more logical than others– include:

The American Plan
Starting with small states and working towards large ones, the American Plan also incorporates random order to afford big states the chance to go early as well.

The National Plan
This plan calls for a national primary where voters can vote once between January and June and ballots are counted and tallied at the start of each month.

The Delaware Plan
This plan relies on “backloading” the primary schedule, that is, allowing less populated states to go first and the most populated to go last.

Interregional Primary Plan
Six groups of primaries or caucuses would be scheduled between March and June. On each date, a state or group of smaller states from one of six geographic regions of the country would go together.

Rotating Regional Plan
Under the proposal, the country is divided into four regions – Northeast, Midwest, West, and South, which take their turns voting first, then one region per month from March to June.

Regional Lottery Plan
State order would be decided by lottery on New Year’s Day. Two small states would be randomly selected to go first, followed by four regions also determined randomly.

One Day National Primary
This plan simply calls for primaries and caucuses in all states on the same day.

The Texas Plan
States are divided into four rotating groups with equal number of both electoral votes and total number of states per each group to provide an equal number of predominantly Republican states and predominantly Democratic states.

Please, people. Get over yourselves and pick one, already. [Personally, I think the Rotating Regional Plan–proposed by the National Association of Secretaries of State–makes the most sense.]

Political thought leaders on both the right and the left are dismayed by what they are seeing in the current system—and I use that term loosely—of presidential primaries. Even Republicans are recoiling from the monster created by our current system. On the left, Think Progress recently issued a call to “ban the Iowa Caucus,” stating that:

It’s as if Rube Goldberg designed a method of polling, implemented it in an unusually unrepresentative state, and then decreed that this state’s votes would receive greater weight than other state in the union.

We’ve finished the 2016 election cycle with an unlikely outcome. There are a lot of reasons we got what we got. No single factor or group is 100 percent culpable. But it’s painfully clear that the nominating system itself bears some of the responsibility. Neither party is happy with the result. But it’s going to be as difficult as ever to get the two major parties to agree on a new system.

To me, the answer is for one party–preferably the Democrats–to take the initiative and pick a new plan.They don’t have to look very far to find options [see above]: These ideas have been rolling around for years. And they don’t have to wait for consensus with Republicans. If the Democratic Party is in as much disarray as insiders and media are reporting, this is the time to do something transformational about one of the party’s most fundamental activities.

Don’t wait for the translation [to quote former UN Ambassador Adlai Stevenson] or for the other party to catch up, just do it.

[Editor’s note: This is a post-election update of an article first posted on Occasional Planet in February 2016.]

The post The presidential primary system: Time to repeal and replace it appeared first on Occasional Planet.

There’s a new independent candidate for President in 2016, but can he get on the ballot in time to make a difference?. Evan McMullin is a former CIA officer and a fervent anti-Trump Republican. He declared his candidacy today–August 8, 2016. If he wants to mount a serious challenge to Trump, he’s got a big uphill climb.

If all he’s interested in, as some have speculated, is stopping Trump in a few states–such as McMullin’s home state of Utah, and a few others–he’s got a better shot. As you’ll see in the chart I’ve created below, Utah’s ballot access rules give him a week–the deadline is August 15–to gather 1,000 signatures. [Note that McMullin is Mormon, and that there’s a huge Mormon vote in Utah–as well as in Nevada and Colorado. He’s still got a couple of days left in Colorado, but Nevada’s deadline has already passed.]

McMullan also has a bit of lead time in several other states. But to be the spoiler in those states, he’ll have to get busy fast.

How to get on the ballot as an independent when you have more time

At this stage of the 2016 election, it’s too late to get on the ballot in all 50 states. If it were earlier in the election cycle, that might be possible. Doing that, though, would take a  large on-the-ground organization, because there is no central place where an independent, a third-party candidate, or even a Republican or Democrat can just fill out a form to get his/her name on the ballot. You have to do it state by state. And ballot access laws—the rules that govern how one gets on the ballot—vary widely from state to state.

It’s also important to note that state laws governing ballot access are skewed toward the established parties—Republicans and Democrats. Third-party candidates or independents not affiliated with a party face additional burdens not required of R’s and D’s. According to Wikipedia, these additional hurdles usually come in the form of “difficult, signature-gathering nominating petition drives” not required of major-party candidates.

Ballotpedia offers a one-page-per-state summary of the rules candidates must follow to get their names on the ballot. I’ve condensed the information into the following chart to demonstrate the labyrinth of requirements for candidates outside the two major parties. [This chart is not intended to be an official guide for candidates. Please don’t sue me if I’ve got something wrong. Consult your local Secretary of State for the official nitty gritty. End of disclaimer.]

For me, the takeaway from this chart is that non-mainstream presidential candidates had better get a detail-oriented coordinator in every state ASAP, and get some signature-getters on board right away, too. As with just about all state-controlled government processes in the US [see: Medicaid], the whims of state legislatures have created a hodgepodge of practices and eligibility requirements. There’s very little state-to-state consistency. And down there in the weeds, there are undoubtedly lots of picky regulations just waiting for a partisan bureaucrat to use to disqualify signatures and candidates. [And if you don’t believe that election regulations have become a partisan sport, you haven’t been keeping up with the latest voter suppression tactics instituted in many states.]

One small advantage for independent candidates…

One other takeaway from this chart: States appear to have granted one concession to off-brand candidates—an extended deadline. You’ll see that the filing deadline for independents and third-parties fall after most states’ primaries and caucuses. That schedule makes it possible for someone like Michael Bloomberg to wait in the wings a bit longer, until the dust has settled from the major parties’ primaries and caucuses, and to assess his chances of jumping in. But there’s still a lot of pressure: Getting enough signatures—valid signatures that will survive the challenge of being checked, one-by-one—can be tricky and frustrating.

But it can be done. [See: Teddy Roosevelt 1912, Ross Perot 1992, and Ralph Nader 2000]

Here’s the chart. It’s long, but we’re a big country, with a lot of rules.

Source: Excerpted and summarized from Ballotpedia

The post Can Independent Evan McMullin get on the ballot to stop Trump? A state-by-state chart appeared first on Occasional Planet.

It has always been hard to unseat an incumbent candidate. The advantages of already possessing a legislative title like State Representative or State Senator are immense. But you know what makes unseating incumbents even more difficult? Allowing them to run unopposed.

In Missouri this year, 72 incumbent candidates for seats in the State Legislature are running without an opponent in the general election. Of those, 53 are Republicans, and 19 are Democrats.  The Missouri legislature has 163 total members. Currently, 117 are Republicans, and 45 are Democrats.

That’s a lot of non-competition in a country that calls itself a democracy.

Missouri’s legislature is dominated by Republicans, who wield their veto-proof majority like a weapon of mass destruction. Our Democratic Governor, Jay Nixon, has been virtually powerless to stop some of the incredibly short-sighted, unfair and damaging legislation passed by the Missouri House and Senate. Examples? This year, Missouri lawmakers passed a Stand-Your-Ground law that is the first such piece of legislation passed anywhere since the ignominious George-Zimmerman-Trayvon-Martin shooting of 2012. They also passed a no-permit-needed-concealed-carry law. Missouri has officially joined the ranks of the most right-wing legislatures in the country.

Clearly, some Missouri legislators need replacing. The usual factors stand in the way: blatant gerrymandering of legislative districts; the built-in name recognition and institutional power of incumbency; the connections to lobbyists, power-brokers and funders.

But by far the best way to get elected is to not have an opponent. So, it’s sad to see that, in so many of Missouri’s state legislative districts, no one has stepped forward to offer opposition in the general election. In so many cases, the stopper is a sense of hopelessness: the belief that there is simply no way to win. Plus, why put yourself out there—exposing yourself and possibly your family to the public abuse that has become a routine part of campaigns– if you’re just going to lose, anyway?

Money is a big issue, too, and campaign costs are escalating. Even the most local races are spending more than ever. Some candidates for state legislative positions are amassing campaign war chests of unprecedented size. I’m guessing that some are piling up the money as a way of demonstrating that opposition is fruitless. Also, knowing that they don’t really need all that money to run against nobody, many will probably share the bounty with other like-minded campaigns, as a way of building power alliances that will come in handy later.

Here are a few numbers [from Missouri Times]:

Sheila Solon, running uncontested in the general election for a safe Republican seat in House District 31 has $93,084.13 in her campaign fund.

Mike Bernskoetter, running uncontested in the general election in the overwhelmingly Republican 59^th House District, has amassed $63,379.72 in campaign funds.

Bonnaye Mims, running uncontested in the general election in the predominantly Democratic 27^th House District, has $32,656.95 in her campaign treasury.

Of course, uncontested elections are not confined to Missouri. Unfortunately, they may be on the rise, and some observers say that gerrymandering is the main culprit.

• According to Richard Winger, of Ballot Access News, in 2012, there were 5,984 regularly scheduled state Senate and House races. About 2,000 of those were in districts where the candidates ran unopposed. Winger says that about 33 percent of all state legislative-district elections in 2012 had only one candidate per seat in the race—and  it’s likely that the vast majority of those candidates were incumbents running unopposed. Many of those races can be won with a mere 3,000 to 5,000 votes or so, depending on the year.
• In 2014, one-third of candidates for the Texas legislature ran unopposed, according to Burnt Orange Report.
• In 2016 elections in Illinois, “even if Republicans win every race where they have a candidate, they cannot win back control of the chamber. That’s because there are too many races where Democrats have an unopposed candidate,” Ballotpedia says of House elections.
• In the Illinois Senate this year, “of the 40 districts up for election, 30 have already been decided because of unopposed candidates,” says Ballotpedia.

I understand why people, on both the Democratic and Republican sides, choose not to run. I wish, though, that Democrats—especially progressive Democrats– would at least try—if only to counteract the right-wing message that dominates Missouri elections and politics. This year, especially with Donald Trump at the top of the ticket, there may be an opportunity for Dems to switch some seats—but that won’t happen when there’s no one listed on the Democratic side of the ballot. It’s sad for Missouri and for small-d democracy, too.

The post Uncontested: One of the worst words in a democracy appeared first on Occasional Planet.