Add to Technorati Favorites Presidential Politics for America

Wednesday, September 16, 2015

Presidential Politics for America Has a New Home!

Starting today, all new columns will be posted at the new Presidential Politics for America site, found here:

Thanks for the good run, Blogspot, but I got the seven-year itch.

Today at the new site: a preview of tonight's Republican debate. See you over there!

IC out

Tuesday, September 15, 2015

Saturday, September 12, 2015

What's the Deal with Lawrence Lessig?

The same week we lost a Republican candidatewe have a new Democratic one. His name is Lawrence Lessig, a 54-year-old Harvard Law Professor. I'm sure we're in general agreement that he has no shot, so what's his deal?

In short, he wants to hit one percent in the national polls so he can make a debate and promote his platform. That platform, incidentally, is the narrowest in recent memory. In fact, it's only one plank wide. We know there are "single issue voters," but have we ever had a single-issue candidate? Well, we have one now. Before we get into that issue, let's take a look at the man himself.

Despite his longer than long-shot campaign, he's no crank. He graduated from Wharton with a B.A. in economics and a B.S. in management. He went on to get his M.A. in philosophy from a little known English school called Cambridge. After that, he settled for merely a juris doctor from Yale. He clerked for Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia before teaching law at the University of Chicago and then Harvard.

So obviously he's an idiot.

His time in the most intellectual of circles has brought him to a frustrating conclusion about the American political system: its citizens don't have an equal say. He argues there is a fundamental unfairness with our democratic republic, and this inequity strikes at the very heart of democracy itself, a form of government of which America claims to be a bastion. He considers this an urgent problem. As his campaign slogan point out, "Fixing America Can't Wait."

What, specifically, does he think is unfair about the American political system? Lessig believes, "We don’t have a Congress that represents us equally." In his announcement speech, he said,
"The largest empirical study of actual policy decisions by our government in the history of political science finds there is no connection between what the average voter wants and what our government does, [but] there is a connection between what the economic elite want and what our government does. There is a connection between what special interest groups want and what our government does."
As examples, in that same speech, the liberal Democrat pointed to the 89 percent of post-Sandy Hook Americans who wanted increased background checks for gun purchases and the three-quarters of Americans who believe in climate change being drowned out by the small but powerful interest groups that make sure Congress does nothing about those issues. "America's government has been bought. But not by us. Not by the American people. America's government has been bought by the cronies and special interests."

In other words, big money has more of a grip on our politicians than the average voter does, and campaign finance reform is essential to leveling the playing field. Between SuperPACs, interest groups, and lobbyists, average voters are getting drowned out, and therefore, we've lost what he calls "citizen equality." As a fix, he proposed the "Citizens Equality Act of 2017," which would ensure:
  • A) An equal right to vote (through automatic registration, a national voting holiday, and reforms to voting rights);
  • B) equal representation (by redrawing gerrymandered districts, so the voters pick the candidates and not the other way around, and creating multi-member Congressional districts instead of having candidates that won 50.1 percent of voters being able to represent 100 percent of them); and
  • C) citizen-funded elections (giving the public more control over the candidates than the big spenders).
If he wins, he would consider himself a "referendum president." Lessig would consider the passage of the Citizens Equality Act his only mandate from the voters, and therefore after accomplishing it, he would resign the presidency and turn power over to his vice-president, probably someone with a history in government but who shares similar views (Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, etc.). Lessig thinks it's essential that this issue is his only one, because that would show that the American people want action on it, and Congress would have to listen.

One might wonder about all the other issues a president has to grapple, but Lessig sees the Citizens Equality Act as a sort of silver bullet. "Every issue--from climate change to gun safety, from Wall Street reform to defense spending--is tied to this 'one issue.'" Lessig offers that these other problems cannot be solved while we have a government tied to special interests and gerrymandered districts. In essence, Congress is supposed to be the law-making body, but Congress won't act on the big problems. In his interview with George Stephanopoulos this week, he said his reforms are necessary in order "to fix this democracy and make it possible for government to actually do something without fear of what the funders want them to do." In other words, if we have problems to solve, we need to incentivize Congressional problem-solving instead of Congressional posturing. That means working for the voters, not the groups that can raise big money to help win elections.

For these reasons, Lessig says he actually likes something about the most divisive figure in the opposing party--Donald Trump. He loves that Trump is talking about the problem with money in politics, and that because he's "very rich," he does not have to take contributions from big money donors. If elected, he won't be beholden to special interests. Lessig doesn't support what Trump would probably do with that kind of freedom, but he does appreciate that Trump is using his considerable megaphone and ego to distance himself from the kind of people that own nearly all other politicians.

But enough about Trump. (As a political blogger, I was obligated to mention him in a post about someone else.) What's Lessig hoping for here? He almost assuredly knows he can't win. Instead, his goal must be to just make the debates to get his issue out there. If he can get Hillary Clinton to say, "You're right," that's about as big a victory as he can hope for.

To get into the first Democratic debate, scheduled for October 13 in Las Vegas, a candidate must reach one percent in three national polls in the six weeks leading up to it. We are in that window now, and the most recent Public Policy Polling survey saw Lessig hit one percent. One down, two to go. In fact, in that poll, he tied the support earned by Lincoln Chafee! That's not the highest of hurdles, mind you, but it's something.

So, if you're a fan of Lessig's narrow platform and want him in the debates, keep an eye on the Democratic national polls over the coming weeks. Even if you're not a fan of his ideas, it would be very interesting to see how a single-issue candidate handles questions on other topics. It could make for brilliant pivoting.

Speaking of debates, we have another Republican one on Wednesday! I'll share my thoughts on it before then.

Friday, September 11, 2015

Perry Out

We have our first withdrawn candidate, and his name is Rick Perry. Unlike 2012, when his entrance into the race saw him sport massive national leads, this time around he could never get anything going. We knew things were pretty bad last month when he announced that, due to fundraising difficulties, he had to stop paying staff. His polling had been bad all campaign, and in recent weeks it turned anemic. For the August 6 debates, he found himself in the matinee, though at least he was at the center of its stage, ready to pounce if one of the top ten blundered. But it was Carly Fiorina, not Rick Perry, who capitalized that afternoon. (She now finds herself at the adult's table for this Wednesday's debate.) Of the last eight polls, he topped out at 2 in a solitary poll.

Yesterday's CNN/ORC poll was probably the final nail in the coffin. It clocked him at 0 percent support, behind even Bobby Jindal, Lindsey Graham, and Rick Santorum, candidates that once looked up at him in national polling.

So yeah, it was time. With two failed presidential bids behind him, it's clear that he'll have to rest his laurels on being the longest serving governor in Texas history.

Implications on race: None. The field can divvy up his one percent of support any way it wants.

Coincidentally, Perry has dropped out in the same week we actually added another candidate, so the combined field stays at 22 strong. Who is this new candidate? I'll talk about him tomorrow.

Tuesday, September 08, 2015

Donald Trump and the Fragility of the GOP

It's been a fortnight since my last post. I've waited two weeks not only because I've had a mountain of work to scale, but also because I realized if I waited the full two weeks, I could use the word "fortnight" in my next post. Mission accomplished! With my summer vacation over, posts will certainly be less frequent--perhaps one a week until the primary season. I'd say consider yourself warned, except I should have done the warning two weeks a fortnight ago. Moving on.

In my absence, there have been three dominant stories:
1) Clinton's email scandal continues, but the attention over it has quelled. Losing her New Hampshire lead was expected, but her national support has solidified in the high 40s rather than continuing its decline from the 60s. In other words, she has shed her soft support, but her ardent base is still with her. Meanwhile, the firewall beyond the opening two states remains in place. Not only is she still in the driver's seat--there's no one else in the car. Bernie Sanders might be in the tailing vehicle, but in this case, the object in Clinton's rear-view mirror is most decidedly more distant than it appears.

2) Joe Biden. Will he? Won't he? Most are convinced he will. I vacillate every other day. Ultimately, I side on no one actually knowing, including Joe Biden himself, to say nothing of the relentlessly unnamed sources. I'm only interested in analyzing the Biden Campaign when one actually exists. Far more fascinating is . . .

3) The Republican pattern: Trump has held his lead, Carson has surged into second, and support for the heretofore favorites Bush, Walker, and Rubio has collapsed into the single digits. It is here where I want to share my latest thoughts.


At a picnic on Saturday, a friend and loyal reader Josh called me out on my all-but-elimination of Donald Trump as a legitimate contender for the Republican nomination. Indeed, back in early July, I had him ranked as just the 11th most likely Republican nominee. Many people assume I must have him as viable by now.

I must admit--his sustained success in the polls has surprised me. His first place run has lasted a month and a half now, longer than those of all the 2012 pretenders. (Gingrich lasted a month, Perry nearly six weeks.) I'd be crazy to not move him into the top ten. The scenarios in which he somehow holds on now outnumber the scenarios under which Jindal or Perry pull off Santorumesque December pops. Therefore, for the record, Trump has ascended my rankings to #7. (He's behind, in some order, Bush, Carson, Cruz, Kasich, Rubio, and Walker. Tumbling are Christie, Paul, Perry, and Jindal.)

But the likelihood of his nomination is not what I want to talk about today. (For the record, I think it's doubled . . . to two percent.) What I do want to talk about is what Trump's continued success and Carson's surge says about the state of the GOP.

On Sunday, an NBC/Marist poll out of Iowa once again showed Donald Trump in front. He scored at 29 percent. In second was Carson at an impressive 22 percent. Most notable is that those two numbers combined reaches 51 percent. In other words, a majority of Iowa voters are supporting someone with no political experience. It's worth mentioning that this poll is not an outlier. The last five Iowa polls, from earliest to most recent, show these two candidates combining for 43, 41, 46, and 48 percent of the fields support. And it's not like national polls are much different. The two sport a combined national RCP average of over 41 percent and have hit 44 and then 48 in the last two.

Moreover, the next two hottest candidates are Carly Fiorina, another candidate with no political experience, and Ted Cruz, known for distancing himself from mainstream Republicans in favor of a tempestuous Tea Party approach to Washington. These four anti-establishment candidates combine for 60 percent of Iowa support and 53 percent of national support, while the other thirteen candidates combine for a minority.

The tide that has lifted the boats of these four candidates isn't just indicative of the anti-establishment movement, though; I think there's a case to be made that the movement is actually anti-party. The most telling moment of Donald Trump's Teflon campaign, where controversial missteps don't seem to negatively impact his numbers, is not when he said Mexico sends over its murdering rapists and John McCain's heroism should be called into question because he was captured. It was this:

When Trump was the only candidate that said he wouldn't necessarily support the party's nominee, that should have ended his surge right then and there. As part of his response, he also said that he wouldn't rule out a third party run, which would likely sink the Republican nominee in November. In other words, he did not rule out helping Hillary Clinton--she of Benghazi, she of treasonous email practices, she of the strongest ever Democratic dynasty this side of the Kennedys--become President of the United States.

A few days ago he said he just signed the pledge (or, as that article put it, "He signed a non-legally binding piece of paper stating that, anyway") but that's not the point. For a month, that debate stance not only didn't hurt him, but his support continued to climb. Two of the last three polls show him with his largest national leads yet--14 and 16 points. Meanwhile, his leads over Bush, Rubio, and Walker are also unprecedentedly large, consistently over 20 points now.

What are we to make of Republican voters not caring that Trump won't necessarily support the Republican Party? Is it that they don't care much for the Republican Party either? The Pew Research Center suggests that might be the case. The party's popularity among their own is in sharp decline:

Republicans Less Favorable Toward the GOP

Similarly, The Washington Post used Pew's research to show how Republican approval of the Republican-led Congress has plummeted over the last four years:

Meanwhile, the Carson surge reaffirms that we might indeed be in the middle of a Republican coup d'etat. I remember a Republican Party that held the feet of John McCain and Mitt Romney to the flame over their previous maverick and moderate positions. Now, however, the two preferred candidates of voters, Trump and Carson, are actual former Democrats. However much they have since evolved, both have a history of supporting liberal positions. And yet, a majority of Iowan Republicans and a strong plurality of national ones supports one of the two.

It begs the question--is the party leadership losing control of its voters? It certainly seems so. Take the endorsement primary, where candidates jockey for support from elected officials across the country. Not only does Jeb Bush continue to dominate that race, but of the 11 Republican candidates to have earned an endorsement, none of them are named Donald Trump or Ben Carson. Party leaders, thus far anyway, have had no control over this process. Scary stuff for Republican leadership.

As seen with Hillary Clinton's frustrated coronation, this process might be happening in the Democratic Party, but it's happening a lot slower thanks to its recent success in national elections. Voters in the Republican Party seem sick of being told who to vote for only to lose. Officials of the party endorsed McCain and Romney early and often, only to have them electorally trounced in November to what Republicans feel has been a disastrous president. With Hillary Clinton on deck to begin a third straight destructive term in the Oval Office, it seems no one trusts the party to again pick their nominee. As a result, Bush, Rubio, and Walker are now single-digit candidates.

Meanwhile, it's reasonable that another contributing cause to the loss of faith in the party stems from the continuing failure of conservative issues in the culture wars. As the GOP continues to lose battles on abortion, gay marriage, religious liberty, national health care, marijuana legalization, transgender rights, political correctness, and the Confederate flag, there's a chance Republican voters just don't trust their leadership to do what they were elected to do--specifically, to fight against the agenda of President Obama and the progressives (a highly recommended band name, btw).

As a result, the Republican Party is in a fragile place right now. As seen with Trump's rise, it seems many voters are ready for the candidate who is mad as hell and not going to take it anymore. Trump has been murky in terms of policy, but he's been crystal clear in terms of attitude. While Carson has elected for a more placid approach, the good doctor is still inoculated from this anti-establishment cancer that has metastasized its way throughout the party. Whereas Trump is brash, Carson's calmness implies that everything he's saying is so self-evident that not a hint of passion is needed to successfully deliver the message. Thus, each candidate has secured the same kind of incredulous, anti-party voter, but those that are turned off by one approach have run to the other. Between them, they've consolidated half the party.

Then, if a candidate with a clean slate in terms of a voting record and party relationships--and if it were Trump, a candidate not beholden to interest groups--were nominated, the desires of this anti-establishment electorate can be grafted onto this new candidate and take the party in an unpredictable direction. The party will have never been this decentralized, which would be worrisome to its leaders to say the least. Furthermore, it stands to reason that a lot of mainstream Republicans will balk about following an untested babe into the Situation Room. This development could fracture the party, and then, who knows?

Or maybe the fortnight was just too long for me to be alone with my thoughts.
cash advance

Cash Advance Loans