The post How Democrats Can Promote Democracy starting with Iowa appeared first on Occasional Planet.
]]>Donald Trump uttered the word and visited the place. We’re talking about Iowa. And off we go, the 2024 presidential election is under way.
There is virtually nothing democratic about the Iowa caucuses. But that has not kept Democrats from worshiping at the altar of Des Moines, Bettendorf and Dyersville where there is a Field of Dreams.
At a time when virtually all Democrats in the House and forty-eight in the Senate are strongly advocating strengthening our democracy with The For the People Act (H.R. 1) and the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act (H.R. 4), the party is hamstrung by Republicans and a few of their own, most notably Joe Manchin (WV) and Kyrsten Sinema (AZ).
The Democratic Party also has a structural disadvantage in the U.S. Senate. While far more Americans vote for the 50 Democrats in the Senate than the 50 Republicans, any gain that Democrats would accrue is negated by the gerrymandered nature of the Upper Chamber. Wyoming has as many senators as California even though California has 57 residents for every individual in Wyoming.
But there is one part of our political process where Democrats can effect meaningful change without constitutional changes. This is the manner in which the party of progressives selects its nominees for president. The method for choosing nominees for president is as archaic and undemocratic as any part of our political process, and Democrats do not seem particularly concerned about it.
The quadrennial nomination process begins in Iowa. With a population of 3.1 million people, it represents less that one percent of the United States. The U.S. is 13.4% African-American; Iowa is 4.1%. The U.S. is 18.5% Hispanic; Iowa is 6.3%. In the U.S. as a whole, 13.6% of the population is foreign-born; in Iowa the number is 5.3%. Oh, and Iowa does not have a presidential primary; it has caucuses in which less than 10% of eligible voters participate.
Just across the Mississippi River from eastern Iowa is Illinois. Like Iowa, Illinois is rich in farmland and rural development. But it also is home to America’s third largest city, Chicago. It is a state that consistently votes Democrat, thus making it an excellent state in which candidates seeking the Democratic presidential nomination can compete. It has minority representation reflective of the country as a whole. It has strong components of virtually every crucial constituency of the Democratic Party.
It clearly makes sense for the Democrats to open their primary season in a state like Illinois. However, we all know that relegating Iowa to a lower ranking would not play well in Iowa. In the past six presidential elections, Democrats carried Iowa in 2000 (Al Gore) as well as 2008 and 2012 (Barack Obama), so there may well be a price for Dems to pay if they relegated Iowa in the nomination process.
If the Democrats choose to engage in meaningful electoral reform, it will require creating a level playing field across the country. The process of leveling will mean that some states like Iowa will have less clout in the nomination process and other states like California will have far more.
It is quite possible that in the short run, the Democratic Party will lose support in smaller states. But that is already happening, and trends indicate that Democrats will be paying less attention to New Hampshire and more to Texas.
But once the Democratic Party has a clear policy of promoting democracy across the board, it will be easier for it to argue for statehood for the District of Columbia as well as Puerto Rico. Both such developments would help Democrats bring more democracy to the U.S. Senate. Once that happens, our country will be much closer to operating as a true democracy.
It’s a small window of opportunity to talk about Iowa without getting thrown out of the room. Now is the time for Democrats to initiate that conversation. Promoting true democracy should be a consistent goal for the Democratic Party.
The post How Democrats Can Promote Democracy starting with Iowa appeared first on Occasional Planet.
]]>The post Being A Good Democrat Means Being A Good Friend appeared first on Occasional Planet.
]]>If there is a single word that best describes what is key to being a good friend, and also being a good Democrat, it is empathy. You care. You care about people who you know, and equally important, you care about those who you may not know, but who are in need of support. It is a form of synchrony; you deeply value those who share many of your political views as well as those you don’t know but who benefit from your progressive policies.
That’s why if you take a look at the $3.5 trillion proposal that President Joe Biden and progressives in both the House and Senate are advocating, it is clear that you want to provide essential help for those within our society who are most in need.
The bill offers key support to virtually all parts of our society that are struggling economically or socially. There is $450 billion to provide childcare and universal pre-K for young children, at tremendous help to their parents and other care-givers. Medicare for the elderly is expanded to include coverage of dental, hearing and vision services. Prescription drug prices will be cut; there will be more paid family and medical leave.
For the first time since FDR’s New Deal and LBJ’s Great Society, a broad and vibrant plan is proposed to address the major societal needs of the day. Yes, there would be some inevitable inefficiencies in funding a bill so large, but both the public and the private sectors of our economy have repeatedly demonstrated that money can be wasted regardless of how much of it is involved. The bottom line, as President Biden and so many progressives have iterated, is that the economic and social benefits provided to the recipients of the goods and services included in the bill is of far greater value than the cost in marginal inflation or normal waste or inefficiency.
Simply put, it is what friends do for one another.
Which brings us to the question of personal friendships among Democratic leaders in our government. We know from the writings of Chris Mooney (The Republican Brain) and George Lakoff (Don’t Think of an Elephant) that most Democrats are warm and caring towards one another, lacking the harshness of many Republicans. Democrats are less authoritarian, less certain of themselves, and more willing to work through compromise with one another. They place more value on the “common good” than Republicans do; while Republicans are more committed to preserving individual liberties, with some key exceptions such as reproductive rights and voting rights.
You rarely see Democrats going hot and cold at one another the way that Mitch McConnell or Lindsey Graham do with Donald Trump. The reverence with which most Democrats speak of Joe Biden or Nancy Pelosi bears no resemblance to the ways in which the Republicans speak of one another.
Democrats are “doers;” they see problems in our society and are committed to using public policy to address quality of life problems. They are impatient with stalling. Every moment wasted is additional time when those in need must suffer.
This gets us to the curious case of Joe Manchin, senior senator from West Virginia. He is a Democrat, and many regard him as the only Democrat who could be elected from his state which over the course of fifty years has essentially flipped from all blue to all red. Manchin, along with Senator Kirsten Sinema of Arizona, have been the sole Democrats in the upper chamber who have not supported President Biden’s 3.5 trillion “soft infrastructure” plan. Both are playing it coy like a cat, making it difficult to ascertain what they really support. Just recently, it was revealed that Manchin had indicated this past July that he would accept $1.5 trillion in spending, though with little certainty as to which programs he supported and which ones he opposed. He seems in no hurry to advance the Biden agenda.
But what may be most interesting about Manchin is how he simply did not act like a friend to his fellow Democrats. He expressed opposition to his colleagues’ support of $3.5 trillion measure and went through the motions of trying to reach compromise. But to date, he has not come close to the neighborhood where his fellow Democrats reside.
What is most baffling about Manchin is the lack of loyalty and friendship that he offers to his fellow Democrats. This is particularly true with the President Biden. Joe Biden is the consummate political professional who makes time to understand the perspectives and positions of all his fellow Democrats as well as a number of Republicans.
No one could be more gracious with Joe Manchin than Joe Biden, yet Manchin seems to offer nothing of substance in return. It is difficult to say this, but what Joe Manchin reminds me of is ….. is a Republican. Manchin shows no urgency to move ahead with progressive legislation. He cavalierly postpones deadlines for when legislation should be considered, all the while forgetting that the Democrats in the Senate are a single heartbeat away from losing control of the chamber.
If Joe Manchin cannot act like a true friend to Joe Biden, and to forty-eight of his colleagues in the Senate who repeatedly bend over backwards to try to accommodate him, then he truly is an outcast.
Not only does he fail to be an active Democrat trying to seize the moment to address a myriad of domestic problems, ones which may have more impact on his home state of West Virginia than any other state, but he refuses to engage in the give and take that characterizes warm friendship.
We mentioned Chris Mooney’s book The Republican Brain, and it may be that Manchin has personality traits more like a Republican than a Democrat. If that is the case, then we may have to give up hope that he can be part of the solution. I hope that I am wrong.
I’d love to say, “Say it ain’t so, Joe.”
The post Being A Good Democrat Means Being A Good Friend appeared first on Occasional Planet.
]]>The post The 2020 Democrats as Their 2016 GOP Counterparts appeared first on Occasional Planet.
]]>History doesn’t repeat itself, but it often rhymes. I’ve been trying to figure out why our current political moment feels so familiar and the answer has been there the whole time. We never stopped fighting the 2016 campaign, the names of the characters have changed but the dynamics haven’t, nor have the issues. The Democratic candidates have their Republican parallels, I’ve done my best to figure out who they are. I’ve found that the description for each candidate fits fairly well whether you’re thinking about 2016 or 2020.
Cory Booker is George Pataki
He’s running a campaign on ideas that the party doesn’t really want. As an elected person representing a populous north eastern state you’d think he’d be more formidable because to be frank he knows where the money is. He is the happy warrior and he wants to talk about American renewal and love. But here’s the thing, voters are angry and have been this entire decade and if you didn’t know that then you were destined to lose. Overall he’s running a “goober” campaign that despite the resume, lacks gravitas.
Tulsi Gabbard is Chris Christie
They once had a promising future in the party, but made a political decision that upset the elites and torpedoed that future. Now they only exist to get bad press coverage and attack weak candidates who haven’t faced real scrutiny. They probably would’ve been better off not running but they don’t have a stellar track record for good decision making. They have theoretical bipartisan appeal, or so we hear from political analysts who seem to have never met a person without a Master’s or makes under $165,000 a year.
Beto O’Rourke is Jeb
We know he’s not running anymore but we can’t believe it all fell apart so quickly. He began his campaign with so much promise and institutional support. After losing the last election the party got together and tried to understand why the last nominee failed and thought they optimized the winning formula with him. But he never had a natural constituency or performed well in debates, so he started to fade. Originally he was loved by the media and then they turned on him. Now he’s universally disliked by the opposition and not especially loved by his own party so now he kind of just wanders aimlessly.
Amy Klobuchar is Carly Fiorina
The media keeps waiting for her to surge but it doesn’t seem to be happening. She’s had some decent moments during debates, but never has broken out of the single digits. She’s still running but it doesn’t seem like it’s for President anymore, yet she’s maintaining that she has a special electability argument. She also has a reputation for “complicated” relationships with staff.
Andrew Yang is Rand Paul
He’s libertarian who is running for the nomination of one of the major parties. He’s saying some things that make a lot of sense and there’s real enthusiasm there. It doesn’t seem like any of his competitors are taking him seriously which is rude considering he polls even or better than many of them.
Kamala Harris is Marco Rubio
They made sense on paper and was promoted as the future of the party. They performed great during debates by challenging the front runner, they had a natural case for electability in possessing several qualities the last nominee didn’t have, and they’re well known in the party. However, they haven’t lived up to expectations and have only seen their polling decline recently. They now seem unlikely to win any primaries, and almost certainly will lose their home state where they were just popularly elected to a different office. This campaign badly damaged their brand and they might be stuck in the Senate forever. To add insult to injury they don’t even poll well with the voters that they campaigned on being able to attract.
Pete Buttigieg is John Kasich
We didn’t really know him at first but now it seems like there’s two profiles about him a week in major magazines. He won’t stop talking about the Midwest and winning elections despite winning fewer votes in his re-election campaign than both his immediate predecessor and successor did in their first campaigns. He isn’t popular with a core constituency in the party which almost certainly makes his campaign a non-starter, but he’s going to unconvincingly pitch to them anyway because he has fundraised enough money from the worst people you don’t know to last until June. Right now, he’s hoping for a brokered convention to win on a fourth ballot or at the very least something to get him the hell out of Indiana.
Elizabeth Warren is Ben Carson
For a little while there it really seemed like they were running away with it! They become the leader in national polls and state polls and had the highest favorable ratings in the party! But increased scrutiny hasn’t been their friend and some voters are questioning their sincerity on some major issues, others don’t think they’re electable anymore. Yet they still represent a large chunk of the party and do reasonably well in polls. Not that long ago, it would have been hard to imagine someone like them leading a major party but there was a politician who looked like them before who shattered the glass ceiling. It’s hard not to find them endearing even if how they deliver speeches is often lacking in energy. People are also whispering about controversial things they did in their youth that would come up in a general election campaign but they built their mythology around it, so they pretty much brought it on themselves.
Bernie Sanders is Ted Cruz
He is supported by the activist base and not well liked by elected officials in his own party. His candidacy represents the natural evolution of the party, many of his positions have been adopted by the field, and he has led national discourse the last few years. He and the front runner clearly don’t like each other, but somehow they like everyone else running even less. He’s ideologically rigid which endears him to many voters, but it angers his colleagues. His plan for the nation is less about policy, although the policy is there, and more about a revolution of kinds to remake America. He makes the most sense as a nominee but it likely won’t happen because of institutional barriers but in spite of that, he’s more motivated in stopping the opposition than stewing over what might’ve been. People never doubt his authenticity because he’s been consistently for the same things forever and so he’s become the standard bearer for his wing of the party.
Joe Biden is Donald Trump
Ever since he announced he’s been the front runner. He’s objectively out of step with the direction the party has been attempting to go and he’s unpopular online. The media doesn’t get it and they desperately want him to fail if the coverage is to be believed. You might think there’d be stronger candidates considering his gaffes, old school ideas, and scandals but it seems like voters are kinda into it. They’ve known of him for the last 40 years, but they really got to know him the last 10 because of his relationship to Barack Obama. We keep waiting for him to falter but about one third of the party seems to be sticking with him. Sure, other candidates rise and fall but typically only ever to second place because nothing has been more consistent this campaign than his dominance in the polls. He’s the favorite to be the nominee and yet we’ll still be surprised when it happens because “I don’t know anyone who voted for him”. Also, what’s going on with his son? Is he alright?
Honorable Mentions:
Steve Bullock is Mike Huckabee
If it were 1988 he’d be President. But his political career didn’t line up with our current political moment and so he’s languishing at the bottom of the pack. He’s the Governor of a state that had ancestral roots in his party but has been long gone in this century. Why didn’t he run for Senate?
John Delaney is Bobby Jindal
Is he seriously running for President or is this a mix of mid-life crisis, boredom, and trying to find work as a talking head on CNN? Regardless he’s shockingly easy to meme and you’re not even sure if he’s still running.
Michael Bloomberg is Michael Bloomberg
He’s a Republican running in the wrong primary.
Deval Patrick is Jim Gilmore
Who? He’s running for What?
Julián Castro is Rick Santorum
He missed his chance to be President in the last cycle. It turns out that being out of Government for four years renders you essentially irrelevant to the voters unless you’re a Clinton.
The post The 2020 Democrats as Their 2016 GOP Counterparts appeared first on Occasional Planet.
]]>The post Why the Democratic presidential nominee must choose a Republican running mate appeared first on Occasional Planet.
]]>The American republic is in crisis. Presidents abuse their power with impunity. Congress wallows in its dysfunction. The mechanism established by our Constitution to democratically and collectively address national concerns is collapsing.
Sound like an exaggeration? Good. Sound alarmist? Even better.
This next presidential election may be the most important in American history. The astonishingly corrupt and contentious reign of Donald Trump needs to end. But it needs to be replaced with an administration willing to take drastic action to address our most pressing problem: unrelenting and increasingly polarized politics.
That is why the Democratic candidate for President needs to pick a Republican as a running mate. Moreover, these two individuals need to pledge – if elected – to work together to put nation above either party.
Democrats naturally will hate this idea. They desperately want to wrestle back control of the White House and use executive authority as aggressively as the GOP has. Sharing this opportunity with Republicans will sound absurd. Democrats will demand their pound of flesh. And who can blame them?
But they need to resist this urge.
Everyone can agree that the parties have never been more polarized. Voters and elected representatives have never been further apart. Finding common ground has become increasingly difficult. Compromise has become almost impossible.
But we don’t live in a parliamentary system that regularly allows for “one party at a time” control. Our Constitution establishes a presidential system anchored on checks and balances and separation of powers. The President who enforces law is elected separately from the Congress which makes the law. Divided government (where different parties control different branches) is common.
Here’s why that matters. A system where divided government is common demands bipartisanship and compromise if anything is to get done. Public policy that successfully addresses the nation’s needs requires the recognition of common ground.
A Democratic administration beginning in 2021 will almost certainly be stuck with a Republican controlled Senate. Even if the Democrats pull off a miracle in 2020 and win a majority in the Senate, it won’t be a “filibuster-proof” majority. Divided government will again prevail. Gridlock and dysfunction will again abound.
Our best chance at escaping this nightmare requires the new administration putting nation above party. It involves using the “Bully Pulpit” of the presidency to advance compromise and bipartisan solutions. With a Democratic president working closely with their Republican vice-president, the White House will be able to champion proposals advancing national priorities. One party wouldn’t be able to own the policy since both parties had worked together in its creation.
Compromise would again become possible. The system, in other words, would finally work again as it was designed.
Congress would be compelled to play along and put petty partisanship aside. Representatives and Senators refusing to reach across the aisle would be labeled as obstructionists. But unlike the badge of honor that label now represents, in this new era of executive-led bipartisanship, obstructionists would be risking electoral suicide.
James Madison’s presidential system will never be replaced by a parliamentary system. And our political parties will not become less polarized anytime soon. These two simultaneous realities explain our dysfunction and the republic’s malaise.
A bi-partisan executive administration reminding us of our required need to find common ground gives us our best hope for the future. Short of this, the American experiment will continue to fail under the weight of polarized parties, executive overreach, and Congressional gridlock.
The post Why the Democratic presidential nominee must choose a Republican running mate appeared first on Occasional Planet.
]]>The post If a Democrat wins the presidency in 2020, what happens to their old office? 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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
]]>The post St. Louis High School Democrats endorse candidates in area primaries appeared first on Occasional Planet.
]]>As a lifelong Democrat and now a high schooler, I have realized just how many of us there are in St. Louis, especially in the Trump era and the recent rise in youth activism regarding gun violence. Thus, St. Louis now has an organization dedicated to high school Democrats. We have had several meetings, met with many elected officials and public servants, and, on Saturday, July 14, endorsed five races in the upcoming August 7th primaries. This was a great way to get involved in the upcoming election and make your voice heard.
The races included US Senate, Missouri’s 2nd Congressional District, St. Louis County Prosecutor, Missouri House District 79, and Missouri House District 81. At the meeting, the Democratic candidates of in these races each spoke for a few minutes and then answered audience. Afterwards, the high schoolers voted on whom they wanted to endorse.
The results were: Claire McCaskill for US Senate; Cort VanOstran for Missouri’s 2nd Congressional District; Wesley Bell for St. Louis County Prosecutor; Lakeysha Bosley for Missouri House District 79; and Travis Estes for Missouri House District 81.
The members of this organization have since campaigned for the endorsed candidates by knocking on doors, calling voters, and writing postcards. Of course, there has been much social media outreach as well. High schoolers love Instagram, Snapchat, and Twitter, posting their support for candidates, and the candidates have made the endorsements evident on their pages.
Endorsements have become a bigger and more intense part of campaigns and races. Candidates strive to get as many endorsements as they can and then remind voters of them often. With this engagement, and with the desire to reach out to young voters, candidates in many of Missouri’s races wanted St. Louis High School Democrats’ endorsement. This competition for endorsements adds another level to a race, and endorsements can make or break a vote.
Claire McCaskill’s campaign sent a representative, and we endorsed her as the Democrat for US Senate. As for Missouri’s 2nd Congressional District, the Democrats who attended the meeting were Cort VanOstran, Mark Osmack, and Bill Haas. Most of their discussion focused on democratic ideals and defeating Ann Wagner. VanOstran talked about healthcare, Osmack about military experience and spending, and Haas about third grade reading levels and a violence prevention hotline.
Wesley Bell represented the St. Louis County Prosecutor race, while Bob McCulloch has again not showed up to a forum and meeting he has been invited to.
The other races were for two house districts that are both part of St. Louis City, 79 and 81. For the 79th district candidates, Lakeysha Bosley spoke about being a woman and representing the district, and J.P. Johnson talked about his experience in politics as an intern and field organizer. In the 81st race, Travis Estes noted that he is the only pro-choice candidate in the race and also that he has experience in the tech world and will use this to implement policy, such as gun registration. Steve Butz was not in attendance, but his campaign manager was. She talked about his views, morals, and experience.
The best part of this meeting was that Democrats were able to come together and talk about what is needed, especially in Missouri. We high schoolers were able to have a voice and be involved in these races, even though most of us won’t be able to vote.
The post St. Louis High School Democrats endorse candidates in area primaries appeared first on Occasional Planet.
]]>The post John Messmer: professor, reformer, fighter for fairness appeared first on Occasional Planet.
]]>The professor shakes our hands and starts right off with his policy ideas. He admits that small talk and working a room are not his forte, but the passion in his eyes for his reform ideas shines bright. John Messmer, a candidate for Missouri’s Second Congressional District, is a different kind of politician. His campaign is heavily focused on reform, and not just for the soundbite, either. With extensive background in political science, Messmer believes that his ideas, with the help of supporters and legislation, can make American democracy more fair.
Messmer, the son of immigrants who were union workers, studied political science and received his doctorate from the University of Missouri. Eventually, he moved back to his home in Missouri’s 2nd Congressional District, where he has lived for most of his life,and has pursued a career as a political science professor at STL Community College at Meramec.
After years of teaching, Messmer says, “I started listening to my students. And there’s a disconnect. There’s a gap between what we need in a democracy and what the reality is among a lot of particularly young people. But I don’t think it’s just unique to young people.”.
Messmer thinks that this disconnect is dangerous, and that corruption has caused feelings of apathy and helplessness. This realization is what made Messmer decide that it was time for change, and so he announced his bid for Congress, saying, “That’s my first and foremost responsibility, to listen to my constituents, be their voice, and show that they do have a connection when it comes to having to navigate through the federal bureaucracy.”
Messmer wants to fix the disconnect, and he has the perfect role model to do just that. Citing the Bernie Sanders movement, Messmer explains, “Young people…think that American democracy is relatively fair. Yeah, there’s some injustices, but for the most part, it’s a pretty well-functioning machine…. You get into your teenage years, and then you get into high school and someone sticks a clipboard in your face… says, ‘You’ve gotta register to vote.’ You’re going to that responsibility seriously. Which means you’re going to start paying attention. When you start paying attention, you’re going to realize the system is not what the little cartoons in the little civics classes in fourth or fifth grade told you about. There’s a lot of injustice. A huge part of this system is rigged. Every other sentence out of Bernie Sanders’ mouth was about that.”
What Messmer realized (as many of us do when we come into our own in the political world) is that, “The status quo in our federal government, especially in Congress, is like a redwood in our backyard. Deep roots. One person isn’t going to do it. Two people aren’t going to do it. You’re going to need an army of people, just as Bernie Sanders talks about. An army of reformers that get in there. That is how ingrained the corruption and our status quo is.”
Yet, while identifying as a Democratic Socialist like Sanders, he clarifies, “I’m not a communist. I like money….Money should be allowed to buy a lot of things. But I’d be damned if money should buy better representation, and that’s what you’re getting.”
Messmer has surely learned this lesson, too. When asked about what his biggest lesson learned so far from the race, he states, “It is more obsessed with money than I dreamed… it’s not so much the importance of money, but…the importance of money for getting your message out, as much as the importance of money for when it comes to being treated seriously.”
Messmer does not have any endorsements. “I think they… don’t want to endorse someone who they think doesn’t have a chance. And unfortunately, we have become drunk on this mindset that when in doubt, go with the horse that has raised the most money.“
It is easy to see how frustrating this situation can be, because money should not buy better representation or buy a seat in the US House of Representatives.
So, how will Messmer combat this money obsession in politics? He has a simple answer: “I love coffee-maker coffee. I’m going to have a coffee maker in my office, and that’s the only coffee I’ll need. Not a cup of coffee accepted from a lobbyist.”
This policy will be true for himself and his whole staff. He wants to publish his appointments with people, maintain transparency, and be as true to his beliefs as possible. When we asked Messmer if he would take thousands of dollars from Edward Jones, He replied, “No. No. Now, if individuals that just happened to work for Edward Jones were giving it to me, that might be a different story. I’d have to question, why are they giving it to me as individuals? If it’s coming from the Edward Jones Political Action Committee, forget it. Save your money.”
At the interview, our mentor Arthur Lieber mentioned, “I think what John said about endorsements and contributions is really distinctly different from others….and in my mind, John explains it in a way that makes a lot of sense and maintains integrity.”
Clearly, Messmer isn’t standing for any of the old money-focused politics. He wants to change the system, make it fair, and make government a place free of corruption and that is truly by and for the people. To him, “[Fighting] injustice is the guiding star of what it means to be a progressive. That was true 130 years ago, and it’s true today.”
You’re talking about an injustice that comes about because the powers that be abuse that power. Monopolize that power. [We] re not upholding the virtue of, in essence, as corny as it may sound, what our Constitution and our Bill of Rights are all about.”
It is only constitutional to protect our rights and protect ourselves from injustice. Messmer believes he is going to do just that, saying, “I don’t care if, again, if you’re liberal, conservative, or libertarian, if you’re urban, suburban or rural, you don’t want to be taken advantage of.”
With his heavy focus on reform, though, Messmer lost some footing with his social issues. During our interview, we talked briefly about how he planned to keep representing minority groups in his constituency. He said, “ I don’t think it’s outrageous to suggest that at job of least three of my staff members job would be to reach out to minorities in the district, whether or not they’re economic minorities, or racial minorities, or in the case of the LGBTQ community, marginalized communities.”
Yet, when asked about why he didn’t have any sections about people of color on his website, he promptly apologized and let us know that he would look into it. He did clarify his views, saying, “The racial injustice by our government, that’s systemic racism, that’s institutional racism. That’s racism by not just the government, our government. None of us should tolerate that. To answer your question is I don’t have it on there, I probably should”. He followed up with, “I will fight this to the death, that we need groups like Black Lives Matter”.
Clearly, he supports thee issues, and less than a week later, I received an email from him saying he had updated his website with the issues we discussed in the interview. To me, this shows Messmer’s commitment to listen to his constituents and do his best to represent everyone. Plus, if you haven’t checked out his website, you definitely should. It took the Civitas interns several hours to comb through the extensive platform issues and 15-point plan outlined for Messmer’s first 100 days in Congress.
In the middle of our interview, Messmer asked, “So, have we ever had truly fair elections? No, I suppose it’s like an ideal. Right? That you can only approach and never actually attain. And I think that’s unfortunately, not to become too philosophical here, but I think that’s just sort of part and parcel of being human. We can just try to approach true justice, we can approach pure perfection, but we’ll never get there.”
While things may never be perfect, perhaps we can have some faith that the American ideal is there. Fairness may never happen, but it is a horizon we must be ever-approaching, with people like Messmer at the front of that march.
The post John Messmer: professor, reformer, fighter for fairness appeared first on Occasional Planet.
]]>The post Two very quick questions I’d like the press to ask Sarah Huckabee Sanders appeared first on Occasional Planet.
]]>Sarah Huckabee Sanders handled herself with such dignity and fine reasoning in the Red Hen incident, but three days later at her press conference, she dives into her usual sloppy logic and nastiness. Among the worst of it is what she says about Democrats. And, she gets away with it, because the press does not ask the appropriate follow-up questions. Here are two of the worst cases from today’s press conference:
Sanders says: “The Democrats are the ones that want open borders”
The follow-up question not asked: “Name one Democrat who supports open borders.” The press does not ask this, and yet there are no Democrats who support open borders without serious restrictions. Shame on the press.
Sanders says: “We need Democrats to stop playing political games.”
The follow-up question not asked: “Do Republicans ever play political games?” Never asked. Shame on the press.
Just asking. And why doesn’t the press do the same.
The post Two very quick questions I’d like the press to ask Sarah Huckabee Sanders appeared first on Occasional Planet.
]]>The post Democrats must do more than win an occasional inning appeared first on Occasional Planet.
]]>It’s understandable that there would be some excitement today in the world of Democrats. They won an inning, the one they play in the odd year following the quadrennial presidential election. But before we get too euphoric, let’s remember that generally the party that lost the presidential race comes back 365 days later and does well, particularly in the two states that have gubernatorial elections, Virginia and New Jersey.
Such has been the case in 2017. The Democratic Party has been starved for victory; for almost any kind of good news. Republicans hold more seats in state legislatures and Congress than any time since the 1920s. The control the U.S. Senate and they only must defend nine of thirty-three of those seats that are up for re-election next year.
If Donald Trump was not enough of a gift to Democrats to win the 2016 presidential election, then his shtick is wearing on enough Americans now that he has become a political liability. Democrats may well be learning two key lessons for the 2016 election: (a) do not ignore the Trump base, and (b) progressive politics appeal to many Americans.
But before we get too excited, it may be helpful to look at recent history which illustrates how Tuesday’s Democratic victories may well be only temporary.
Politics has an ebb and flow to it. If the norm in the United States is for the pendulum to swing between Republicans and Democrats, then the only factor that really matters is what is the medium point between the two major parties. Regrettably, the base line for American politics has been moving more and more to the right. We have to go back fifty years to Lyndon Johnson to have a Democratic president who not only espoused a liberal agenda, but who was also successful in working with Congress to implement it.
The “silent majority” of George Wallace and Richard Nixon in 1968 has grown and now travels under the name of the Tea Party or simply Trump voters.
Democrats have had their share of victories since the era of LBJ, but they have not been able to sustain a true political movement. Many thought that the election of Barack Obama reflected the triumph of identity politics, and because Obama was so likable and free of corruption, the move to the left could be sustained.
But when Mitch McConnell said shortly after Obama’s election that his goal was to keep Obama as a one-term president, the power of what Hillary Clinton aptly called the “vast right-wing conspiracy” has been able to thwart movement to the left that results in the implementation of progressive policies.
Temporary victories are better than temporary losses. But for Democrats (or people of other parties or non-parties) to be successful in moving the body politic in more of a progressive direction, several key things need to happen. None of these have anything to do with temporary victories, but they are key to long-term success:
Congrats to everyone who won, or who helped Democrats win on Tuesday. But let’s focus now more on the structural issues.
The post Democrats must do more than win an occasional inning appeared first on Occasional Planet.
]]>The post Would Democrats be better off without the Democratic Party? appeared first on Occasional Planet.
]]>If you’re a Republican, a standard criticism of Democrats is that they are bad with all things money – raising it, spending it, managing it and overseeing it. As new little “secrets” come out about the operations of the Democratic National Committee in the last presidential cycle, it’s clear that in many ways the Republicans have the Democrats correctly pegged.
Okay, Democrats can raise money. It’s ugly as they largely depend on a donor class that is about as far removed as possible from the traditional constituents of the party. It’s important to add a caveat here. Bernie Sanders largely raised his money from grass roots and equally importantly stayed away from money-bags that are the source of revenue for most Dems running for office. But Bernie had little to do with the DNC, and the latest revelations tell us that the situation was not accidental.
Donna Brazile, interim chair of the DNC, acknowledged, “An August 2016 agreement gave Hillary Clinton’s campaign partial control of the DNC months prior to Clinton winning the nomination.” This was before Brazile was chair; it was on Debbie Wasserman-Schultz’s watch under the supervision of President Barack Obama. What would be the motivation for this? Could it have been that the powers-that-be in the Democratic Party thought that Clinton did not have the political power to win the nomination without their help? Is it that the powers thought that Clinton had such a corner on wisdom of the issues that no competing points-of-view were necessary?
It’s more likely that it was what we frequently see in corporate America, interlocking directorates. It is not secret that Wasserman-Schultz was a strong supporter of Clinton. And since it was clear that Obama was supporting Clinton and that he was in a position to determine key staff positions in the DNC, the Committee was obviously going to do whatever it could to ease Clinton’s way to the nomination.
One of the reasons why Republicans dislike government is their skepticism about bureaucracy, particularly the ways in which Democrats run them. Fortunately for Americans, the party does a much better job of running most of the essential agencies necessary for government than they do of their own privately-political enclave.
Brazile says that the party’s monthly expenditures doubled in the previous five years, in large part because of Wasserman-Schultz and Obama keeping expensive consultants on the payroll. No one seems to know what the consultants were actually doing, but the outcome of their work, or non-work, was to lose the White House and have the fewest Democrats in Congress since before FDR.
Might it not be better to simply not have a Democratic National Committee? A party organization must stay neutral in the contests between nominees, at least it should if it says that is part of its mission. But the DNC did just the opposite. They said they were neutral, but they took sides.
Do they really need to raise money? Democratic candidates have become as skillful as Republican in the post-Citizens-United era that began in 2010 of raising money from deep pockets. If all that the DNC does is to raise money to line some pockets and self-perpetuate, then there is no need for it.
Someone needs to organize the quadrennial conventions and call to order meetings of state and local Democrats. But that could be done by a small, sleek and efficient office personed by a handful of staffers.
Like any organization, the Democratic Party will connect better with its members if the bureaucracy models the behavior that they would like to see. Democrats need to prove that they can be a lean, non-mean machine. Waste and inefficiency undermine the important goals of meeting the needs of the disenfranchised and economically disadvantaged among us. For now, let’s drastically pare down the role of the DNC, and while we’re at it, let’s have the candidates run campaigns that are better characterized by the needs of the core of the party’s historical constituency rather than the donor class. That’s what we can call the common good.
The post Would Democrats be better off without the Democratic Party? appeared first on Occasional Planet.
]]>