Mississippi’s two U.S. Senate seats have been in the hands of Republicans for over a quarter-century — and in the case of Cochran, it’s been held by a Republican (him) for over 35 years. Mississippi voters recognize that a Democrat isn’t winning that seat anytime soon and if they want to actually make a difference in the election of someone who represents all of them, crossing over and voting for the lesser of two evils (to Democrats and most African-Americans) between the two Republican candidates is their only opportunity to make that difference. The GOP Senate primary in Mississippi basically decides the general election since the winner is virtually guaranteed to beat the Democratic nominee in November. When there is a threat of someone like Chris McDaniel — someone who Democrats and African-Americans in Mississippi disagreed with so strongly that they actively supported Thad F’ing Cochran (!) — winning a primary election that would basically clinch him a seat in the U.S. Senate for the next six years, I think it’s a wonderful display of our political system when voters organize themselves in a way that allows them some measure of self-determination. I don’t know why an election in which that happens would be overturned. Nobody broke any voting laws and Mississippians were exercising their franchise in the best way possible — to make sure that they played a part in voting for the person they wanted to represent them.
Incidentally, this type of crossover should open the eyes of any groups or people who wonder about the feasibility of creating a new third political party. It’s one thing if voters are just flat-out fed up and stay home because they don’t care about the candidates, they don’t see any reason to actually go to the polls, and they just don’t care. But these voters in Mississippi clearly care very much about who is going to represent them. The voters who crossed over are so concerned about who is elected to serve their interests that they went to the polls and voted against someone that they’ve probably voted against throughout their lives in order to have some influence in the political process. People want alternatives, but the extremists on both sides of the aisle that both Democrats and Republicans actually put forward as alternatives are so unappealing that voters settle for the incumbents that they don’t really like — and, in the case of yesterday’s Mississippi Senate primary, many voters supported an incumbent just because they disagreed with him less than they disagreed with the other guy.
Every region of this country is ready for a backlash against incumbents as long as the alternative isn’t an extremist. This nation is ripe for a moderate third political party that draws in independents and the frustrated Democrats and Republicans who don’t really identify with those parties as they stand today. Building a third party takes time and money, but it can be done and it should be done. If a third party is organized efficiently in each state and then coordinated on national level, a third party can grow and be successful. It’s not going to result in a third party candidate being elected President right away, but building the party and coordinating it effectively so that the party earns name-recognition and ballot access will allow the new party to elect candidates on a state level and start making progress. Two to six years in and that new party would hold seats in Congress and State Legislatures, grab a few Governorships, and be able to position itself for a serious run for the Presidency. It needs to happen. The country is ready for it now.
No, there hasn’t been a “true Libertarian” President, and if all the Democrats and Republicans were somehow disqualified from running for President in the next election and a Libertarian somehow won, the country wouldn’t change at all. About 20 minutes after the Libertarian President was inaugurated or received their first major briefings, he or she would realize, “Oh shit, government is really important and totally necessary and even if I wanted to make this a truly Libertarian country I couldn’t do it because there are three branches of government and both of the major parties would actually probably team up to defeat what we’re trying do. Plus, actually instituting drastic changes in order to realize the Libertarian ideal would require a repudiation of Libertarian beliefs because it takes government action to change government policies.”
I’ve had a lot of people try to argue to me that the United States is way more of a Libertarian country than a Republican or Democratic country and that the partisan bickering and constant government gridlock due to the two major parties is turning more-and-more people into Libertarians. That’s an easy one to shoot down: no Libertarian has ever even come close to being elected President or Vice President and today, in 2014, Libertarians currently hold a grand total of ZERO Governorships, ZERO seats in the U.S. Senate, ZERO seats in the U.S. House of Representatives, ZERO seats in State Senates or upper chambers of State Legislatures, and ZERO seats in State Assemblies or lower chambers of State Legislatures. In a country where ignorant people use the labels of “socialist” and “Muslim” as if they are bad words, there is an avowed socialist (Bernie Sanders of Vermont) serving in the United States Senate and two Muslims (Keith Ellison of Minnesota and Andre Carson of Indiana) serving in the U.S. House of Representatives, but ZERO Libertarians in significant elected positions. I don’t care how passionate many Libertarians are — and they are very passionate because no one sends me angrier and more annoying hate mail than Libertarians — the Libertarian Party has no effect on American electoral politics. None whatsoever.
Thank you. I wasn’t sure if Tumblr was the place for a hard-hitting, technically-detailed editorial using Kermit the Frog and Miss Piggy to explain the Super PACs that are now dominating American politics, so I’m glad it resonated.
Now, I’m the last person to toot my own horn (inappropriate) and I’m not saying that I deserve any sort of recognition or anything, but when the respective organizations are ready to send me my Pulitzer Prize and Peabody Award, I’ll be happy to pass along my mailing address. No C.O.D.’s, though.
Our entire campaign finance system is a joke. With Super PACs, I think we should just drop the stupid games and acknowledge what they really are and what really happens with them. I don’t think anybody truly believes that there is no direct coordination between Super PACs and candidates, especially when Super PACs are directed by people with extremely close connections with specific candidates. It’s ridiculous. Just stop insulting our intelligence and acknowledge it for what it actually is. If you’re already doing what you want to do, why do you need to try to trick us into thinking that it’s not what we know it is?
Listen, imagine if Kermit the Frog was running for President and there was a Super PAC called “Building a Green Future" that Miss Piggy was in charge of. Everyone would probably say, "Hey, I bet they are totally coordinating their campaigns", right? And no matter how many times Kermit denied any collusion between his campaign and Miss Piggy’s Super PAC, we probably wouldn’t believe him if he kept showing up on MSNBC with Miss Piggy’s lipstick marks all over his stupid face, right?
Well, that’s basically the charade we get with campaigns and Super PACs nowadays, except the candidates aren’t nearly as appealing as Kermit the Frog and there is cash in the place of Miss Piggy’s lipstick.
I say that I think it’s going to be tough for the South Dakota Republican State Convention to impeach the President of the United States since only the United States House of Representatives can do that.
Since South Dakota only has one member of Congress in the entire House — Kristi Noem, who is an at-large representative for all of South Dakota — and Noem doesn’t support impeachment, it looks like it is back to the drawing board for the South Dakota GOP.
I don’t think Obama (or anyone else) should be too worried about South Dakota. I mean, let’s put it this way — the entire state of South Dakota has just one more seat in the United States House of Representatives than my garbage can does. Seriously! If, for some strange reason, my garbage can was granted a seat in the House there would be exactly as many members of Congress representing my garbage as there are representing the entire state of South Dakota.
(No offense to anybody from South Dakota who might hitchhike to Minnesota so they could use the internet there to read this.)
General Zachary Taylor, writing about his Commander-in-Chief, James K. Polk, to his son-in-law from Monterrey, Mexico during the Mexican-American War.
As the war with Mexico progressed and General Taylor’s success in the field as a commander brought him military glory and his name began being put forth as a potential Presidential contender in 1848, a jealous President Polk saw him as a rival. Even though Polk had pledged to only serve one term and had no interest in breaking that campaign promise, he wanted to handpick his successor and made numerous attempts to cause difficulties for Taylor, place obstacles in his way, and neuter his military authority. General Taylor recognized that the President’s actions were politically-motivated efforts to slander his reputation, force his resignation, and handicap his shot at becoming President.
Although Taylor had not previously had any ambition for a political career — in fact, he had never even cast a ballot in his life — Polk’s efforts backfired, Taylor continued to be seen as a war hero, and the General was motivated by the President’s actions to seek the Presidency in 1848. Taylor, of course, won the election and an exhausted Polk — an intense workaholic who believed that it was just short of a sin if a President sought leisure or took a vacation while in office — was stricken with illness as he returned home to Tennessee and died just three months after leaving office.
First of all, I have never, ever seen the appeal of Joe Lieberman. I thought he was a crappy Vice Presidential pick for Al Gore in 2000, and I think the main reason why Lieberman was his choice was because Gore saw it as a way to deflect some of the heat off of him that he thought he faced from being connected to Clinton during the Lewisnky scandal. Lieberman was one of the most vociferous detractors of Clinton from the Democratic side, and Gore wanted some of that moralistic rub.
As for a bipartisan ticket, there are always going to be difficulties with that. An independent run is going to be even more difficult because independent candidates have to be highly organized and get an early start in order to get ballot access in all states, which they need to have even a slight chance at winning. In 2000, McCain would have needed to run as an independent almost from 1999 instead of seeking the GOP nomination (remember, he actually beat George W. Bush in the New Hampshire Primary in 2000) if he wanted a shot at being on the ballot in every state during the general election. Lieberman likely wouldn’t have been a consideration in 2000 as an independent candidate for anything since he actually was the Democratic Vice Presidential nominee that year.
As for 2008, I think that McCain/Lieberman is an interesting idea and, in hindsight, anything would have probably been better for the GOP than Sarah Palin on Election Day. I just can’t envision Lieberman getting nominated by the Republicans in 2008. Maybe he could have been nominated in 2012 after he had spent more time as an independent, but he in 2008, he was the key to a Democratic majority in the Senate. Since he was caucusing with the Democrats as an independent (as was Bernie Sanders), the Dems had a 51-49 majority. If Lieberman caucused with the Republicans, he would have lost his seniority and his chairmanships, but the Senate would have been tied and the Republican Vice President Dick Cheney would have been a tiebreaker. That probably would have been held against him if McCain put him forward as his choice for a running mate.
But 2004 is definitely a possibility. Listen, it’s no secret that John Kerry and John Edwards was an awful ticket, and yet, Kerry almost won the 2004 election because of the backlash against President Bush. It was well-known that McCain and Bush were not close, especially after the 2000 Republican primaries where McCain was Bush’s only serious challenger and Bush’s campaign used some dirty tricks against McCain (and McCain’s family) in the South Carolina Primary. I think McCain could have been nominated as a Vice Presidential candidate by the Democrats at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. I think the Kerry/McCain ticket would have picked up some appeal from the anti-war Republicans and some moderates, as well as some of those Nader voters. Although Nader didn’t win any Electoral votes, he did win over 400,000 popular votes and in an election as close as 2004 was, that could have shifted things enough in the really close battleground states to have been the difference in 2004 and swing the election to John Kerry.
Well, they weren’t really identified as such (like “Reagan Democrats), but there had to be some traditional Republican voters who supported LBJ in 1964 because he won 61% of the popular vote — it’s still the biggest margin of victory in the popular vote in American history.
Goldwater definitely took the GOP far to the right in 1964 and many moderate Republicans were unhappy with the prospect of voting for him. That — and the civil rights legislation and Great Society progams of LBJ’s Administration shifted the status of the Republican and Democratic parties from that point on. The states of the Solid South — which had been traditionally Democratic since before the Civil War and anti-Republican since the time of Abraham Lincoln — shifted to the Republican column with the appearance of more Conservative GOP candidates. Some of the blue-collar areas of the Northeast, Midwest, and Mountain West, which had been a stronghold of moderate or progressive Republicans for years began shifting to Democratic. When people talk of the two major parties “switching places”, this is what they normally mean. They didn’t necessarily switch places, but they evolved into different versions of what they previously were, largely in the area of social issues.
"LBJ Republicans" would have been traditional Republicans like those in Vermont and Maine who normally went with the GOP but were so turned off by Goldwater that the states not only went to LBJ in 1964 but they’re now solidly Democratic. "LBJ Republicans" could also be found in Midwestern and Mountain West states that had long had a history of electing progressive or moderate Republican Senators. Those Senators also played an integral part in passing LBJ’s civil rights and Great Society legislation that the Democratic Senators from the previously Solid South were vehemently opposed to. As the GOP became more Conservative, many of those progressive and moderate Republicans Senators either switched parties or ended up losing their seats to challengers as the population of their state shifted to the right and further away from their traditional ideology.
Dave Brat beat Eric Cantor in yesterday’s primary partly thanks to the fact that Cantor spent so much money attacking him in ads as a “liberal professor” that it actually gave him name identification in the Congressional District.
But wouldn’t it be great if labeling Brat as a “liberal professor” totally backfired in the other direction and actually enticed voters to support him against Cantor because they moved to the left? That didn’t happen — especially in THAT district, but a boy can dream.
At the beginning of the 19th Century, being Secretary of State was almost a guarantee that you’d be elected President. Five of the first eight Presidents had served as Secretary of State, including three (James Madison, James Monroe, and John Quincy Adams) who went directly to the White House from serving two terms as Secretary of State. But it’s been nearly 160 years since the last Secretary of State — James Buchanan, who ran President Polk’s State Department from 1845 to 1849 — was elected President.
I think it’s more difficult now for a couple of reasons. First of all, Secretaries of State aren’t nearly as powerful now. The Vice Presidency is a far more influential position today than it was in the 18th, 19th, and first half of the 20th Century, the White House Chief of Staff handles the Administration’s COO-type responsibilities that many Secretaries previously took on, and as other Cabinet posts have increased their profile within the Executive Department it has diminished the power of the Secretary of State, especially when there are turf wars like the feud between Colin Powell and Donald Rumsfeld. The Secretary of State used to be a Foreign Minister-type position that was basically just short of being equivalent to a Prime Minister; in many ways, the Secretary of State used to be (unofficially) the first-among-equals within the Cabinet. That changed a bit early in the 20th Century, but especially in the latter part of the last century. Basically since Nixon’s Presidency, American foreign policy is almost fully run by the White House through the National Security Staff (formerly known as the National Security Council). The Secretary of State is a member of the National Security Staff and has a role in formulating that policy, of course, but they are more like Super Ambassadors who go where the President sends them and relays messages. They have always been the top American diplomat, but the job now is much more political, domestically and internationally, than administrative.
Another reason why you don’t see more Secretaries of State running for President directly from the State Department is purely political. If a President serves a single term, a Secretary of State isn’t going to be an ideal candidate because they’d have to challenge their boss. If a President serves two terms, there is usually voter fatigue when it comes to the President and his Cabinet. After two terms, the opposition party will have been sharpening their knives and getting ready for the Presidential election. A Secretary of State who has either served two terms in office or wants to run for President directly from the State Department after one term in the Cabinet is an easy target. All Presidents eventually become lame ducks and if someone is serving in their Cabinet as the President’s popularity starts to take a dive, they’ll usually be painted with that same brush. It’s easy to run against them — whether you’re from the other party or challenging them in the primary.
Hillary Clinton would have a more difficult race in front of her if she were serving as Secretary of State in Obama’s Cabinet right now. It would be easier to connect her with an unpopular President who is rapidly heading towards lame duck status if she were currently in the Cabinet. Since she left after the first term, on her own terms, after Obama had been re-elected, she basically left at the perfect time — it’s like when an athlete retires after winning a championship. If you go out on top, you control your destiny and shore up your legacy. So, that’s why no Secretaries of State have been elected President since Buchanan in 1856 and few have even won their party’s nomination. But, if things play out the way I think they will, Hillary will end that drought in 2016.
Basically, anybody who traditionally voted Democrat — usually white, blue-collar Democrats and mainly in the Northeast and Midwest — that supported Reagan in the 1980s and went back to supporting Democratic candidates after Reagan’s Presidency. A lot of them continued supporting Democrats in state and local elections, but voted for Reagan in Presidential elections. There were some Reagan Democrats during the 1980 campaign, but more of them began popping up after Reagan became President. Reagan Democrats were a large reason why Reagan won 49 out of 50 states in the 1984 election.
Some Reagan Democrats supported George H.W. Bush in 1988, but not enough to make a huge difference and most traditional Democrats were back supporting Democratic Presidential candidates soon after Reagan left office. Reagan Democrats also had an effect on President Reagan’s legislative success. The Democrats had majorities in the Senate and the House of Representatives throughout Reagan’s Administration, but the fact that a significant group of the electorate supported Reagan’s agenda and were the type of voters that usually made sure to make it to the polls on Election Day led a lot of conservative and moderate Democrats in Congress to support Reagan rather than have to face the possibility of having the popular President show up in their districts to campaign against them and endorse their opponents.