The Young Turks take note of an ominous sign from the party the progressives think is theirs. A leftist take on the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee’s smoke-filled room machinations.
Ana Kasparian spoke the line quoted in the title, above; John Iadarola spoke, sarcastically, the words used here as caption to the video, directly above. Francesca Fiorentini also comments on this news story.
A photo, found on Virginia Governor Ralph Northam’s 1984 medical school yearbook page, went viral. It was of a person in black-face next to another in a Ku Klux Klan sheet. In almost no time at all, Democrats and others quickly demanded that the governor resign.
Why the speed?
The already-started presidential campaign?
Or the likelihood that Democrats would experience no disadvantage should their governor step down?
Lt. Gov. Justin Fairfax, an up-and-comer in the Democratic Party, would take Northam’s place. And under Virginia’s gubernatorial term limits, Fairfax could run again for a full term after finishing the rest of this current term.
With Virginia’s one-term limit, it would allow a rare option to run as an incumbent.
There’s a speed bump, though. Not necessarily the sexual assault allegation lodged against Fairfax, which he denies … and about which we know little. What’s certain? Fairfax is positioned far to the left of Northam — in a state that is still more purple than blue.
A bitter feud with Laborers’ International Union of North America illustrates the problem. Mr. Fairfax has long opposed two pipelines that the union desperately desires. The union — a donor of $600,000 to Democrats in 2017 — demanded that candidate Northam remove Fairfax’s name and picture from mailers to union households.
Northam complied.
And got hit by charges of racism.
You see, Fairfax is black.
Playing down the dis, Fairfax called it a “mistake”; others chose “mindboggling,” a “slap in the face,” and a signal that blacks “are expendable.”
Northam still won … with 87 percent support from black voters.
Should Northam finish his term, Lt. Gov. Fairfax would remain well positioned, but the race would be wide open. If Fairfax becomes governor, however, no Democrat will challenge him for fear of splitting the party.
Yet, come 2021, Fairfax is too far left to defeat a decent Republican … should one appear.
This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.
—
See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
Bruce Poliquin, Maine’s incumbent second-district U.S. Representative, knows what to blame for his loss this last election: the preferences of Maine voters.
Well, he blames Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) … in which voters rank the candidates by preference, and whose votes are counted so to better tally second- and even third-favored options.*
The Republican Representative enjoyed a slight lead on election night, but fell short of a majority. When two independent candidates were eliminated, their second-choice votes put Democrat challenger Jared Golden over the 50-percent mark.
Maine Republicans are upset. It turns out that losing isn’t as much fun as winning.
Shocking, I know.
So Poliquin sued, arguing that RCV is unconstitutional. He asked a federal judge to stop the ballot tabulation.
Judge Lance Walker, a Trump appointee, was “not persuaded.” He additionally noted that “the citizens of Maine have rejected the policy arguments plaintiffs advance against RCV.”
Twice.
In 2016, Mainers passed RCV by ballot initiative and then, in a 2017 referendum, vetoed the legislature’s arrogant repeal of the voter-enacted reform.
“While Mr. Poliquin publicly works through the five stages of grief over his election loss,” remarked RCV advocate Kyle Bailey, “the real story is that the implementation of Maine’s Ranked Choice Voting law was smooth, transparent, and in accordance with the will of the Maine voters,”
Meanwhile, Chuck Slocum, past chair of the Republican Party of Minnesota, urges fellow Republicans to “consider” this non-partisan reform.
Yes, a process that better counts voter preferences ought to help your political party.
This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.
* In cases where no candidate gains a majority of first-choice votes, the last place candidate is eliminated and his or her votes re-allocated to those voters’ second choice, and this process continues until a candidate reaches a majority.
» See popular posts from Common Sense with Paul Jacob HERE.
“The mainstream media screams about Russia stealing elections,” says U.S. senatorial candidate Dale Kerns, “but behind the scenes they pull the strings to keep the duopoly in control.”
Mr. Kerns, who is running in Pennsylvania as a Libertarian in a four-candidate race, has had the rug pulled out from under him. Early on, the League of Women Voters had assured him that he would be able to participate in televised candidate debates in Philadelphia. That opportunity was dashed as the date of the event neared.
“Make no mistake, this is cronyism,” insists Kerns, who notes that “big media corporations collud[e] with big government political parties to keep out competition.”
Eric Boehm covers the scandal/not-a-scandal over at Reason. The early promise of inclusion came from the League, and it was “other organizers” of the event who decided that the Libertarian and Green candidates’ polling numbers were low enough to excuse exclusion.
You might wonder why debate organizers would want to have less interesting debates. But remember: the two entrenched parties’ candidates want to win. Period. The last thing they want are challengers from other parties included, because those challengers can only peel off voters from them.* And though the major-media hosts may wish to seem non-partisan, they almost never refrain from taking a side.
I do not (and cannot) know which reason contributed more to the Philadelphia renege, so will let you hazard your own guesses.
This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.
* Which helps explain why the parties tend to “cheat with both hands,” as Nicholas Sarwark, the Libertarian candidate for the mayorship of Phoenix, Arizona, put it.
Photo from Max Pixel
The three issues on the ballot in Memphis this November are “not complicated,” writes Commercial Appeal columnist David Waters, “unless you read the actual ballot questions.”
Which is all most voters will see.
All three directly affect the self-interest of members of the Memphis City Council, which placed them on the ballot and determined the language voters will attempt to decipher.
Waters called that ballot wording “incomprehensible” and “intentionally confounding.” His newspaper colleague, Ryan Poe, accused the council of “trying to stack the deck.”
The first measure would weaken the council’s term limits, passed in 2011 with a 78 percent vote and just about to kick in. The ballot language, Mr. Poe explains, “reads like voters are being asked to place limits on council members … rather than extend them.” By an extra term.
The second issue would repeal Instant Runoff Voting (IRV), which was brought forth by citizen petition and enacted via a 71 percent yes vote. The confusing ballot wording brings up a 1991 federal court decision without providing voters any context or explanation.
Though IRV has not yet been used, council incumbents fear it.* This becomes especially clear when you discover that the third ballot question is actually a sneakier, second attempt to repeal IRV.
“Instant runoffs, and run-off elections in general, tend to make it easier for challengers to unseat incumbents in multi-candidate district races,” argues Waters. He adds, “Incumbents generally become stronger the longer they are in office.”
To incumbent politicians, reform is a dirty word.
This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.
* Back in February, the council was caught paying a lobbyist to convince state legislators to restrict their city’s ability to implement Instant Runoff Voting.
Strange for the Arlington, Texas, City Council to hold a meeting on a Sunday evening, much less one to “consider suspending the city charter.”
That is how the Fort Worth Star-Telegram reported “the latest twist in the term limit controversy that has engulfed the city with a lawsuit and competing ballot proposals.”
Led by Zack Maxwell, citizens in this Fort Worth adjacent community of 400,000 gathered 11,000 voter signatures to place a term limits charter amendment on the November ballot. It would limit councilmembers to three two-year terms. It also figures in past service, so five of the eight current councilmembers would be blocked from seeking re-election in the coming two years.
With swift legislative prowess, the council responded, passing its own competing “term limits” measure, which incidentally allows them to stay 50 percent longer in office.
But there’s one problem: the council did not follow the law, which requires multiple readings, with one at a regular meeting.
Actually, there’s a second problem: Mr. Maxwell challenged the council’s unlawful action in court.
The court blocked the council’s measure.
That left the council holding an unusual weekend meeting to suspend the rules and re-pass their fumbled alternative to the term limits voters really want. But news travels fast and city hall was “packed.”
“You’re suspending the rules because your jobs are in jeopardy,” charged one man.
A woman told the council, “You guys should be absolutely embarrassed about this.”
“After hearing from dozens of angry residents,” the paper explained, “[t]he council voted unanimously to not suspend the rules, finally killing its own term limit proposal.”
Politicians doing the right thing … having exhausted every other possibility.
This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.
Photo from the Fort Worth Star-Telegram