They’re angry with one another – Claire McCaskill and Josh Hawley, running in the tightly contested U.S. Senate race in Missouri. McCaskill is doggedly pursuing re-election and shows remarkable energy for someone who is 65. Hawley is trying to help Missouri Republicans overcome the stain of their last young knight in shining armor, former Governor Eric Greitens.

Let me suggest ways in which at least one candidate, McCaskill could make her campaign more honest, spend far less money, and do the voters a real service. Here are some proposed talking points for Claire to say:

1. I’m a moderate. Lots of Democratic voters want me to be a progressive. Lots of independents and some Republicans want me to be in the middle. By being in the middle, I will pick up a few conservative Republican votes, but probably less than my previous strategy would indicate.
   • Why am I a moderate? I’m not sure. It’s partly a calculus I have made to maximize my chances of winning re-election. Now there are those on the left who think that I would do better with a more progressive agenda, but I don’t think that’s a formula to win state-wide in Missouri.
   • If I wasn’t running for the U.S. Senate, I’m not quite sure where I’d be. My inclinations are to help those who those who are least enfranchised in our society – women, minorities, differently abled, etc. But I’m somewhat hung up on this “Missouri values” thing, whatever the hell that means. So, I’m not Elizabeth Warren, but I’m certainly not Mitch McConnell.
2. The money I raise. I guess you get inured to it after a while. Really what I do is beg. I know that if anyone outside of politics was asking you for money multiple times a day you would call the Better Business Bureau, or the prosecuting attorney (I once held that job in Jackson County [KCMO]). It’s true that our current laws and the way that they have been interpreted by the Supreme Court allow me to do just about anything that I want to in terms of raising and spending money. But it just seems, well, unseemly. I have a distinct name advantage over my opponent. How much is any advertising going to help me? So, I’m going to stop asking for money, stop accepting money, and stop spending money except for bare necessities and communications that elevate the conversation.
3. About my husband. My instinct is to say “that’s none of your damn business.” But, the fact is that we often live under the same roof and we have shared values, concerns and assets. If I could re-write the script, I would not want my husband in a line of work in which he interacts with the federal government. In fact, I know that the whole idea of nursing homes for profit is somewhat distasteful to many, but there is a need for housing for the eldest and most infirmed among us and he is providing needed facilities and care. As best I know, his facilities are not scandalous like so many that come to our attention.
4. About my opponent. I don’t want to personally attack him. But if I don’t point out certain inconsistencies or curiosities about his views and positions, who will. He says that he supports care for pre-existing conditions, but at Attorney-General of Missouri, he has filed suit to eliminate this protection. And his notion that sex trafficking occurs now because of the sexual revolution of the 1960s makes you wonder about the history classes that he took. In any event, however charming he might be to some, he is so far to the right that he will likely jeopardize the well-being of anyone who needs a government safety net to get over tough times.
5. And about Donald Trump. I know that many Missourians like him and what he is doing. I have to admit that I’m somewhat surprised that he has not done more visible damage to the United States than we have seen. But in insidious ways he is decimating the federal government, particularly the agencies that provide necessary services for all of us, yes, even those of you who think that everything revolves around “Missouri values.” If I was conservative, I might find Trump to be charming. But his humor is mean and so are many of his policies. If it hurts me politically to distance myself from him, so be it. Even I have standards.
6. One final thing. It’s been a good run for me; nearly twelve years in the U.S. Senate. I never claimed that I would term-limit myself (as Susan Collins did), but three terms will be enough, especially since at age 71 my political ambitions are likely done. So, if you re-elect me, I’ll be “one and done.” Fresh blood is a good idea.

I actually think that this might be a good strategy for McCaskill and if she has sleepless nights, this might help reduce them. I won’t remain awake waiting for her to take this strategy. But if she did, what a breath of fresh air it would be to our political process.

The post Trying to cut through the B.S. in Missouri’s U.S. Senate Race appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Illinois Senator Tammy Duckworth ranks first in our list of viable Democratic candidates for 2020.

If the Democratic Party is truly going to be progressive, it is important that those who seek the presidency in 2020 walk the progressive walk instead of just talking the talk. Specifically, this means that hypocrisy must be reduced to a level that is equal to or is less than that of Jimmy Carter when he ran for president in 1976.

One of the reasons why Hillary Clinton was easily dismissed by so many Democratic voters was because of her coziness with Wall Street and her comfortability in shilling for money. Similar behavior by Barack Obama undermined his support among progressives. It would behoove any Democrat running for the presidency in 2020 to use the Bernie Sanders method of raising small dollar amounts from millions of people. In this case, integrity and practicality go hand-in-hand.

This means that Cory Booker must kiss the pharmaceuticals good-bye and Adam Schiff the same with Parsons Corp. “The Hill” reports that Kamala Harris is now the darling of the “Democratic donor class” and that brings with it all kinds of hazards which serve to unravel a progressive persona.

For 2020, a candidate needs to commit him or herself to spending time with voters who have little or no connection to the financial elite.

Recently, we analyzed some basic demographic information on 44 possible Democratic candidates for president in 2020. These candidates come from a list constructed in early June, 2017 by the Washington Post and The Hill.

We have established four basic criteria for suitable candidates for president in 2020. They are:

1. A candidate must have progressive bona fides. The Democrats are not going to win by being “Republican-lite.” More importantly, a “Republican-lite” agenda is not good policy. Democrats must understand that good policy makes good politics. It worked for Franklin Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson. Among other things, they both addressed issues of income inequality and that may well be the number one issue that the nation faces now.

2. Not only does a candidate need to restrict from whom he or she receives financial support, but it is equally important to not subsume oneself in the world of the rich and mighty. Yes, there are very wealthy people who have a balanced view of society such as Warren Buffett . But these are people who would rather meet with you in their own living room or office rather than for cocktails at a club in the Hamptons.

3. The candidate has to be youthful. As a septuagenarian, I realize this is a disqualifier for my contemporaries, but with the exception of Bernie Sanders (who will be 78 in 2020), it is difficult to find progressives who understand Millenials and those younger. These are the people who Democrats need to bring into the fold in order to win and also to educate for long-term policy initiatives.

4. Psychological fitness. Nothing is more difficult to quantify than this and we know that the American Psychiatric Association has adopted the “Goldwater Rule” which states “it is unethical for psychiatrists to give a professional opinion about public figures they have not examined in person.” But the experience that we all are having with Donald Trump as president shows us that ideology and even character become irrelevant when someone is psychologically unstable and dangerous to others.

What do we mean by psychological fitness? Here are three factors for starters for political candidates:

a. Being aware of hypocrisy. This means that a person needs to be on the “irony channel” – having the ability to see the absurdity of much of the behavior that is presently part and parcel of politics. Perhaps the best example of someone who has this awareness is Minnesota Senator Al Franken.

b. Being confident, but not arrogant. A good example of this would be California Congressman Adam Schiff, ranking member on the House Intelligence Committee.

c. Being comfortable in one’s own skin. Since FDR, there seem to be only two presidents who meet that criterion, John F. Kennedy and Barack Obama. Jimmy Carter would be a runner-up.

So, from the list of forty-four, here are seven to consider who might qualify. Unfortunately, with most of them there are already tight ties with entrenched moneyed interests. We’re hoping that they can realize that in the internet era, campaigns can be very inexpensive. The web also presents the best opportunity for a campaign to go viral. It should be a badge of honor to not snuggle up with the “Democratic donor class.”

With humility, here is a list of “magnificent possibilities,”

1. Illinois Senator Tammy Duckworth
2. Minnesota Senator Al Franken
3. California Senator Kamala Harris
4. California Lieutenant Governor Gavin Newsom
5. California Congressman Adam Schiff
6. Former Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick
7. New Jersey Senator Cory Booker
Feel free to share your thoughts with us.

For additional thoughts on this topic, see Reece Ellis’s post in Occasional Planet.

The post Suggested disqualifiers before Campaign 2020 begins appeared first on Occasional Planet.