Well, yes, it’s not the clearest photo of all time, but that’s because it’s taken from a television screen. But if you wanted a poster for what is wrong with money and politics, this picture will do it.

In the center, and at the podium, is J.B. Pritzker, a candidate running for the Democratic nomination for governor in Illinois. Why is that a problem, after all, shouldn’t anyone who meets the legal requirements to run for office be allowed to?

Absolutely. And the fact that according to Forbes, Pritzker is worth 3.5 billion, nor that his family owns the Hyatt hotel chain. America should be safe for anyone to run for office, regardless of how wealthy they are.

If Pritzker was just a wealthy man who has an interest in politics (he majored in political science at Duke University), there would not be a problem. It wouldn’t necessarily be a problem that his list of friends includes former President Barack Obama or even former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich.

Here’s where it gets tricky, or maybe just plain disgusting. His friendships are littered with favors being asked and favors being granted. When that happens in politics, it is politely called conflict of interest. In other circles, it is called corrupt.

Shortly after Barack Obama was elected president, the question of filling his Senate seat became a topic of conversation. There would not be an immediate special election, instead the governor of the state, Rod Blagojevich at the time, would make an appointment.

It turned out that Blagojevich’s efforts to “sell” the seat became cause for him to become another Illinois governor to be sent to prison. But J.B. Pritzker was right in the middle of the dealing. According to FBI wiretaps obtained by the Chicago Tribune, the following took place:

J.B. Pritzker, a billionaire businessman with political ambitions, told Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich he was “really not that interested” in the U.S. Senate seat the governor was dealing in late 2008.

Instead, Pritzker offered his own idea: Would Blagojevich make him Illinois treasurer?

“Ooh, interesting,” Blagojevich said during a November 2008 phone call with Pritzker. “Let’s think about that. You interested in that?”

“Yeah,” Pritzker answered, “that’s the one I would want.”

So, Pritzker is not some paragon of virtue running for office who happens to be a billionaire. He is tightly intertwined with politicians and others who make the levers of government move.

The photo shows Illinois Senator Dick Durbin standing next to Pritzker. Durbin has made a name for himself as a liberal, if not progressive, who can work effectively with Republicans. He has been one of the leaders to achieve a bi-partisan solution to immigration issues, and would probably be hailed as a very effective deal-maker if it was not for Donald Trump scuttling his work.

But when it comes to supporting Pritzker against other Democrats running for the gubernatorial nomination, Durbin is tainted. Pritzker has donated at least $25,000 to Durbin campaigns, and it could be far more.

Also next to Pritzker is Illinois’ other Democratic Senator, Tammy Duckworth. She too is a recipient of Pritzker largesse.

Pritzker money is all over Illinois politics, particularly among Democrats and including to a large extent Barack Obama. J.B.’s sister, Penny Pritzker, became Obama’s Secretary of Commerce.

So regardless of what ideas J.B. Pritzker has (he says that he supports a public option for health insurance for Illinois, but the state is virtually bankrupt), this man is not who Democrats who we can respect should be supporting. That’s what’s wrong with the picture, and unfortunately, all over America there are similar photos of “pay-to-play” endorsements.

What can we do? At the very least, express our outrage and consider withholding support.

The post What’s wrong with this picture? appeared first on Occasional Planet.

The race for the 2020 Democratic nomination began at 11:30 PM, November 8^th, 2016 when the networks projected that Donald Trump would carry the state of Florida. Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Minnesota, and New Hampshire were all still too close to call. Hillary Clinton was not going to be President, and one has to wonder what was going through the minds of Democratic governors, senators, congresspersons, and business leaders across America. At first maybe there was anguish over the loss, but there must’ve been a bitter-sweetness to it all. Dozens of Democrats had been sidelined by Hillary Clinton in 2016, and expected to wait until 2024 before looking at the White House. But now President Trump provided them an opportunity that another President Clinton couldn’t have.

A previous article mentioned 44 possible democratic contenders for 2020, but if that number sounds ridiculously large to you, that’s because it is. If you recall in 2016, at one point there were 17 candidates vying for the GOP nomination, but sources listed up to 55 possible candidates. Of course, all of those people didn’t run, but even if they did, just because a candidate runs does not mean they’re likely to secure the nomination. George Pataki, was never going to win the Republican nomination. As for the Democratic side, something tells me people were not exactly fired up about Lincoln Chafee.

In a previous piece we devised a metric for measuring not necessarily who is the Democratic front runner, but who in a vacuum should have a better than average chance of being nominated. Listed below are the seven most likely Democrats to be nominated, not according to any particular poll or bias of mine, but according to their scores. I don’t agree with a few potential candidates who have earned top spots, but I’ll explain their attributes and potential weaknesses nonetheless. You can find my article explaining these scores here.

1. Tammy Duckworth (Senator from Illinois 2017-): If Duckworth ran, she’d be an interesting foil. Voters already have a largely negative view of President Trump, but his lowest rated moments were the mocking of a disabled reporter and his attacks on the Khan family. Duckworth is both disabled and a veteran, so assuming Trump is Trump, that could serve as a boon for her potential campaign. Like Barack Obama, Duckworth is a senator from Illinois, and would still be in her first term if she decided to run. Duckworth has relatively few questionable donors, and her largest contributor is EMILY’S List which works to elect pro-choice female candidates. Duckworth is currently rather unknown, but so was Barack Obama at this point in 2005. Her greatest strengths as a candidate are her age (which would provide a stark contrast to the aging Trump) and her confidence but lack of arrogance.
2. Keith Ellison (Deputy DNC Chair, Rep from Minnesota 2007-): In theory Keith Ellison could be a tremendous candidate. He is from a swing state (Clinton won Minnesota by less than 2 points), he is fiercely progressive, he’s relatively young, he represents the diversity of the party, and he’s well versed in the issues. But in Trump’s America, and frankly in Obama’s America, I doubt that a Muslim candidate could win the presidency let alone the nomination of a major political party. If Ellison weren’t a Muslim, I think it’s also conceivable that he’d be DNC Chair. However nearly 4 in 10 voters say they couldn’t support a Muslim candidate, it’s unclear if Ellison can overcome that much prejudice. His greatest strengths as a candidate are his progressiveness and age.
3. Michelle Obama (Former First Lady of the United States 2009-2017): When I was scoring the candidates, this was very unexpected. I love Mrs. Obama, most Americans do, but I do recall another former first lady’s presidential bid not resulting in a landslide victory. Michelle Obama however has none of the baggage of Hillary Clinton, but she also lacks the political experience. If she ran there’d critics would decry dynasty politics and elitism, and perhaps those critics would be right. That said, Michelle Obama has high name recognition, is reportedly to the left of her husband on most issues, and seems to be more genuine in her emotions than he was capable of being. Mrs. Obama, assuming her potential campaign could survive the first primaries, would likely benefit from high turnout among African-Americans who came out in record numbers for her husband in 2008 (who nearly swept southern black voters). It’s not unreasonable to foresee a scenario where either Mrs. Obama runs for governor of Illinois in 2018, or she starts publicly challenging the President on policy issues and she garners legitimacy among democratic voters. Her greatest strengths are her age and the level of comfort she has in her own skin.
4. Elizabeth Warren (Senator from Massachusetts 2013-): If there is one person on this list who could have defeated both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump in 2016, it’s Elizabeth Warren. Democrats tried to draft her to run, she refused, and ended up not endorsing Bernie Sanders before Super Tuesday (a move that is still unforgiven by many in progressive circles). I would argue that might’ve irreparably hurt her star power, had it not been for the fact that she’s stayed active in opposing the Trump Administration. The Democratic party doesn’t have a face as of yet, but being shut down by Republicans while trying to read a letter from Coretta Scott King and her being racistly branded as “Pocahontas” by the President, have made her even more of a household name. If Warren runs, she’ll be viewed as the establishment friendly progressive. Which is to say that she Sanders-lite, liberal enough to satisfy most Sanders voters but not a socialist enough to scare away Clinton donors. Her greatest strength is her progressiveness and her psychological fitness.
5. Sherrod Brown (Senator from Ohio 2007-): Brown has a net approval rating of 23 points in a state that Hillary Clinton lost by 8 points. Brown was against TPP before it was fashionable, and as early as March 2015 Brown was saying “Why not, at some point Medicare for the whole country? It’s simpler”. Brown is a rust belt progressive with a voice like steel wool and hair like Rand Paul, which might be endearing if not for one thing. Brown is not a young man, he’ll be 67 in 2020, but if the enthusiasm young voters had for Bernie Sanders is any indication, that might not be as much of a disadvantage as it once was. Brown, more than any other candidate, has the potential to win back Obama-Trump converts and perhaps the Bernie or Busters because of his authenticity and his history of fighting for the working class. Brown’s greatest strength is his progressiveness and his abundance of confidence and lack of arrogance.
6. Al Franken (Senator from Minnesota 2009-): I want Al Franken to be President, full disclosure. I think he’s underrated and he’d be the best nominee we’ve had since Jimmy Carter, save Barack Obama. Now, Franken has only recently made himself more visible in the Senate with his intense questioning of Trump’s nominees, Jeff Sessions in particular. Franken is progressive, not as much as Elizabeth Warren or Keith Ellison, but nobody will be accusing him of being a “neoliberal shill”. Franken also is very funny, and that is something that Trump lacks and voters want. In my totally biased opinion, the funnier candidate has won in every election since 1992 (Ross Perot was genuinely hilarious). Franken’s greatest strengths are his psychological fitness and his lack of questionable financial ties.
7. Kamala Harris (Senator from California 2017-): If I had to guess who will be the next President of the United States, I’d probably pick Kamala Harris and I’d probably be right. Unlike with Rubio, when people draw parallels between her and Barack Obama they actually exist. If I know former Bernie supporters, and I do because I am one, she’s going to run into a lot of trouble for her connection to the establishment donor base and her perceived political opportunism. Harris does have the unfortunate habit of creating a minor political moment and turning it into a desperate fundraising email that same day, so maybe the political opportunism is real but no more extensive than any other democrat. That being said, her greatest strengths other than her age, is that she is progressive.

Some articles have suggested that there are front-runners: Bernie Sanders, Cory Booker, Joe Biden, and others. But I’m not so sure there is a front runner at the moment, it’s important to remember we are as close to the first debates of 2019 as we were to the debates of 2015. This time last cycle, the conventional wisdom was that Chris Christie and Jeb Bush were the GOP frontrunners. So, with that in mind, take my estimations and of others with a grain of salt.

Notable Absences & Discrepancies

1. Bernie Sanders (Senator from Vermont 2007-): Let me briefly address the elephant in the room. Bernie Sanders won 13 million votes in the 2016 primaries after being ridiculed as a fringe candidate, he greatly influenced the platform, he’s maybe the most popular Democrat in America, and I think it’s probable that he would’ve outperformed Hillary Clinton. But Bernie will be nearly 80 by 2020, and say what you will about it being ageist to bring up his age, but voters care. Bernie’s behavior after the New York primary when it was clear he was going to lose, and his commentary on the election didn’t behoove him. So, he’s lost some points in the “Confident but not arrogant” category. I love Bernie and even if he’s right on the issues, he lost the primaries decisively (I know, Hillary had the party establishment behind her) and he shouldn’t presume to be the face of the party. All things considered, I think the window for Bernie to be a viable candidate has passed.
2. Joe Biden (Vice President of the United States 2009-2017): Perhaps Joe Biden doesn’t remember his 2008 campaign for President, but I do, it was a spectacular failure. Biden consistently failed to poll outside of the margin of error, he was gaffe prone, and he ended up with an abysmal 1% in Iowa. Biden if he were to run wouldn’t suffer from name recognition or gaffes (we love the gaffes now), but he comes with baggage. Biden has family baggage, his son’s affair with his dead brother’s wife might not play so well. Biden has political baggage, he represents the old Democratic Party of Obama and Clinton, and the new progressives won’t be eager to elevate that after our devastating loss last year. Biden also has financial baggage because he and Hillary have the same questionable donor base and connections to big money. So as much as I love Joe, I don’t know that his potential campaign could withstand media attention and progressive activists.
3. Bill DeBlasio: Why does Bill DeBlasio, an older white man, have such a relatively high demographic score? DeBlasio’s wife is a black former lesbian, they have two biracial children, and together they are a perfect representation of the melting pot. Interracial couples are rare in the political world and I think DeBlasio, should he run, would find it easier to make inroads to communities of color.

The post 2020 Potential Democratic Contenders: A Closer Look 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.