Category: political challengers

Categories
ballot access incumbents political challengers Voting

You Have Entered the Incumbent Zone

gerrymandering, Louisiana, incumbents

“Would you agree that incumbent protection is one of those?” Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito asked Janai Nelson, president and director-​counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, arguing in the congressional redistricting case Louisiana v. Callais.

One of what, you ask? 

Alito was referring to the High Court’s 2023 ruling in Allen v. Milligan, where it declared: “A district will be considered reasonably configured if it comports with traditional districting criteria.”

Yes, Ms. Nelson acknowledged: “Incumbent protection has been considered a traditional districting criteria.”

That whopper stood out from the rest of the debate. While it certainly wasn’t the focus of this redistricting case heard by the Supremes on Wednesday, in this political Twilight Zone in which we reside — this crepuscular nightmare — let me submit for your consideration that we have just identified a rather large thumb placed on our electoral scales.

The aim of elections is not to guarantee any particular outcome. Yet, protecting incumbents means seeking a very, very particular outcome.

Elections should make sure that — above all else — the voting public shapes the government.

Definitely not that the government shapes the public. 

By drawing fancy lines for districts.

The founders worried most about monarchy and anarchy, kings and chaos. But they realized that three classes were especially dangerous in republics: secure government workers (“job holders”; bureaucrats), factions (partisans; special interests) and protected politicians (incumbents). To hear, from the highest court in the land, that the regular practice of creating and revising legislative districts routinely “and of course” protects incumbents can only lead to one conclusion:

Redistricting needs a full-​scale, fundamental change.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with Krea and Firefly

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
insider corruption political challengers Regulating Protest social media

Revolution Gen Z

Nepal, revolution, internet, Gen Z

It began as online outrage. 

Nepal’s government had banned social media, fearing the extremity of sentiment that might be expressed against the regime, but what followed that ban brought down the government. The general mood of protest escalated into nationwide demonstrations, clashes with security forces, and the storming of government buildings, resulting in at least 74 deaths and over 2000 injuries.

But this was not an organized coup. It developed so swiftly from youth protest to the fall of Prime Minister K.P. Sharma Oli’s government* that it sure seemed to be spontaneous, taking just a few weeks’ time (or days’, depending where you set the starting point.)

Interestingly, the government the protesters ousted was communist, as in Marxist-​Leninist — but both the ruling CPN-​UML and the Maoist Centre are less ideologically rigid than traditional Marxist parties, focusing on nationalism, development, and power-​sharing rather than the totalitarian push for utopia.

That is, the commies went straight to the corruption part of the long arc of socialism.

And that’s what young people objected to, focusing special ire on “nepo baby” status examples, the scions of wealthy rulers living life extra-large. 

But the low employment rates also mattered, as did the censorship of the Internet, upon which so many Nepalese economically depended. 

In fact, the momentum of Nepal’s uprising appears to have been largely driven by domestic digital activism on TikTok and Discord. 

It’s not called the “Gen Z Revolution” for nothing.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

* Protesters battled security forces on September 8; by the next day the parliament building and other government offices were in flames and the prime minister had resigned. The social media ban was lifted. The army imposed a nationwide curfew on the 10th; Sushila Karki, 73-​year-​old former Supreme Court Chief Justice became Nepal’s first female prime minister on September 12, 2025.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with Krea and Firefly

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
incumbents national politics & policies political challengers

Taking Out The

Joe Biden, Alfred E. Newman, MAD,

At last Sunday’s Trump Rally in Madison Square Garden, Tony Hinchcliffe, a reputed comedian, told a very unfunny joke, referring to Puerto Rico as a “floating island of garbage.”

The outcry was understandably loud, so noisy in fact that it apparently awakened Sleepy Joe Biden. “The only garbage I see floating out there is his supporters,” declared the man who is — remember? — currently still president of the United States.

Mr. Biden has since clarified that he did not mean what he said. That’s good. 

Though, White House press secretary Karine Jean-​Pierre sounded a different note: “So, just to clarify, he was not calling Trump supporters garbage, which is why he put out … a statement that clarified what he meant and what he was trying to say.”

But Mr. Biden did say what he said. That’s not in dispute — it’s on videotape. 

Yet … the reporting seems fuzzier now about whether President Biden uttered what our ears heard. 

On NBC Nightly News, anchor Lester Holt began a segment by referring to Biden’s “apparent reference to Trump supporters as garbage.” 

At Vox, Eric Levitz defends the president, arguing that he “ended up spouting a garbled stream of words,” sure, but those words “may or may not have dehumanized all Trump supporters as ‘garbage.’”

How could Levitz know for certain? He’s not an etymologist, after all.

A Washington Post analysis also found the president’s lack of noticeable cognition to absolve him of any ill intent. “Biden’s increasing tendency to stumble over his words, which marred these very comments,” the paper explains, “makes it entirely plausible that he didn’t intend to tar large numbers of Trump supporters.”

At best, we have a commander-​in-​chief who can no longer communicate coherently. With his finger on the nuclear button. 

What — me worry?

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob. 

PDF for printing

Illustration created with Midjourney and Firefly

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
First Amendment rights media and media people political challengers social media

The Ignorance of Censorship

Covid, censorship, surveillance, PSYOP, mind control

Why is Tim Walz, Harris’s running mate, governor of Minnesota right now?

Perhaps because government censors — functioning through agents like Mark Zuckerberg’s Facebook — made it harder to hear his opponent, Dr. Scott Jensen, during Walz’s 2022 re-​election campaign.

A shift in a few percentage points would have tilted things in the challenger’s favor. But Jensen had made the government’s response to the pandemic — including the tyrannical policies of Walz’s state government — a central theme of his campaign.

And in those days (as in these), all-​out censorship of various deviations from the government line was de rigueur. Disagreement about COVID-​19, both the nature of the infection and the wisdom of the government’s response, was among the targets.

Jeffrey Tucker asks “Why Did Zuckerberg Choose Now to Confess” to the fact that Facebook had done so little, in Zuckerberg’s words, to resist repeated pressure “from the Biden administration, including the White House … to censor certain COVID-​19 content”?

The answer to the uninteresting question “why now?” is standard CYApolitical calculus. In any case, the confession isn’t quite exhaustive; Zuckerberg doesn’t acknowledge the extent of the censorship. As Tucker notes, “every single opponent of the terrible policies was deplatformed at all levels.”

The single COVID-​contrarian piece by Tucker himself that slipped through the social-​media censorship net “by mistake” got an atypical tsunami of response. So what if Dr. Jensen’s message and arguments had not been perpetually smothered by government-​pressured social-​media companies?

Jensen may still have lost (Walz got 52 percent) but the point of elections goes further than a horse race. Where there is free speech, voters can learn something.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with PicFinder and Firefly

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
national politics & policies political challengers

RFKj+T

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. Democrat party, president, endorsement

RFK, Jr., is clearly more afraid of Democrats wielding power than he is of former President Donald Trump. That’s why the independent dropped out of the presidential race last week and endorsed Mr. Trump, the Republican Party nominee. 

“I began this journey as a Democrat,” explained Robert Kennedy, Jr., stating that it was “the party of my father [the likely Democratic presidential nominee in 1968, when he was assassinated], my uncle [President John F. Kennedy, assassinated in 1963], the party which I pledged my own allegiance to long before I was old enough to vote. I attended my first Democratic Convention at the age of six.…”

But last October, RFK, Jr., left the Democratic Party, arguing that Democrats have “departed so dramatically from the core values that” he “grew up with,” that it has “become the party of war, censorship, corruption, big Pharma, big Tech, big Ag, and big money.” 

And he also acted out of necessity, when the party “abandoned democracy by canceling the primary to conceal the cognitive decline of the sitting president.”*

Kennedy bitterly complained about the efforts of Democrats to deny him a spot on state ballots, blasting “DNC-​aligned judges” that threw him “and other candidates off the ballot — and” have attempted “to throw President Trump in jail.”

NBC News suggested that Kennedy sees Trump as “a partner — and a fellow victim.” Probably so, but RFKj specifically cited “Free speech, the war in Ukraine, and the war on our children” as “the principled causes that persuaded [him] to leave the Democratic Party and run as an independent, and now to throw [his] support to President Trump.”

Kennedy Democrats for Trump?

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob. 

* RFK, Jr., wondered aloud: “How did the Democratic Party choose a candidate that has never done an interview or debate during the entire election cycle?”

NOTE: Mr. Trump reportedly promised Mr. Kennedy that, if elected, he would release all the classified material related to his uncle JFK’s assassination. A pledge Trump made in 2016 and did not keep.

PDF for printing

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
ideological culture partisanship political challengers

Among the Ungovernable

What is the Libertarian Party up to in inviting former President Donald John Trump to address the party’s upcoming national convention?

The goal of this “third party” may be crystalline in its clarity — a free society as understood by Libertarians — but how this can be achieved by running candidates for office in Partisan Duopoly America is murky at best. The number of self-​identified libertarians in the country is small, though polling in the 1990s suggested that about a quarter of the population is of a general libertarian mindset: minimal government; private property; personal freedom as the tolerant community’s ideal; individual responsibility as the chief form of social regulation.

The difference between a self-​identified Libertarian and a libertarian-​ish citizen at large can be huge, in some ways: no taxes versus lower taxes, for example. These positions play dramatically differently, of course, in elections where most voters are not libertarian at all.

The 2024 convention will be held May 23 – 26 in Washington, D.C. (of all places). And Donald Trump (of all people) has accepted the invitation to speak (offered to both he and President Biden). The party is shilling registrations for the event by telling prospects that only registered attendees will be able to cast their votes to establish “the topics President Trump will address during his time at the podium.”* 

As a newsworthy event, this is one of the party’s best stunts. The very idea of inviting the presumptive Republican nominee to speak is … weird. And, therefore, newsworthy. It might make for an apocalyptic event — encompassing every meaning of “apocalyptic.”

The convention itself is titled, in traditionally flagrant Libertarian fashion, “Become Ungovernable.” While Libertarians mean this slogan in a good (and peaceful) way, its ambiguity and alarming nature is one of many reasons Libertarians get low vote totals. 

Trump addressing Libertarians could suggest a more negative interpretation of “ungovernable.”

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

* Good luck with that.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with PicFinder and Firefly

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
First Amendment rights national politics & policies political challengers

The RFK Challenge

Joe Biden, censorship, surveillance

Yes, but …

When contemplating a candidate for office we may like, we do a lot of “Yes, but” thinking. It’s impossible not to.

Yesterday I considered the candidacy of Bobby Kennedy, Jr., in the context of the Republican/​Democrat Duopoly™. Many of my readers may like his stances on COVID or war, but worry about other positions, like the Second Amendment and “climate change.”

Yes, but … there is another Yes, But context: the candidate forces mainstream voters and media manipulators to Yes, But their cherished positions.

Yes, Trump was “a threat to democracy” for trying to “overturn an election.” RFK, Jr. grants that Democrat talking point. 

But when pressed by Erin Burnett of CNN, his response was a challenge: “I can make the argument that President Biden is the much worse threat to democracy, and the reason for that is President Biden is the first candidate in history — the first president in history — that has used the federal agencies to censor political speech, so to censor his opponent.”

Now your and my response might be, No, but …

As in, he was certainly not the first president in American history to directly censor political speech.

But the presidents who did that are all heroes to the CNN crowd, so they’ll have to say, “Yes, but …”

But what? What’s the response? 

The CNN article, linked above, was lame: “‘With a straight face Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said that Joe Biden is a bigger threat to democracy than Donald Trump because he was barred from pushing conspiracy theories online,’ DNC senior adviser Mary Beth Cahill said in a statement. ‘There is no comparison to summoning a mob to the Capitol and promising to be a dictator on day one.…’”

What CNN and the DNC and the whole establishment ignore is the vast suppression of thousands, millions of voices online, organized by the government and ex-​government and close-​to-​government operatives.

Yes, but … they like censoring their competition!

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with PicFinder and Firefly

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
ballot access national politics & policies political challengers

The “We the People” Party Pooper

duopoly, two party system, third party

The only substantial challenger to the two parties, this presidential campaign season, has been Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. 

The son of a presidential primary frontrunner in 1968, and nephew of the 35th President of the United States — both assassinated — has been an environmental litigator and vaccine skeptic for years, and, unlike Presidents Biden and Trump, has publicly and fundamentally criticized the handling of the recent pandemic.

Though a Democrat for years, he was marginalized by the Democratic Party — an efficient machine for an astoundingly monolithic power center — and last October decided not to run as a Democrat. 

So he’s gathering signatures, creating parties, all sorts of schemes to make good on his promise of being on the ballot in every state of the union.

As Ron Paul’s last-​minute ballot access coordinator in 1988, I know how difficult that is. The two parties have only continued to tighten their grip on American election “rules.” If you were wondering why Bobby Kennedy made his Veep choice so early and picked wealthy Silicon Valley lawyer Nicole Shanahan, the reason is that many states require a Vice Presidential running mate to be on the petition before signatures are gathered.

RFK, Jr., was forced to jump the gun. Plus, now a candidate, there are no campaign finance limitations on Shanahan putting her personal wealth into the effort. 

Interestingly, RFK has formed a “national” political party, the “We the People Party,” which has established footholds in California, Delaware, Hawaii, Mississippi, and North Carolina. He has also formed The Texas Independent Party and is on the ballot as an Independent in Hawaii, Nevada, New Hampshire, and Utah.

While in recent years there has been tremendous focus on how people vote, look at all the hurdles and walls still facing the who, if that candidate exists outside the major-​party duopoly, a victim of all its silly, anti-​democratic laws.

Maybe that’s one way Kennedy’s campaign can “do good,” by highlighting an issue neither party cares about: free and fair elections.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with PicFinder and Firefly

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
folly political challengers

Pied Pipers, Again

Adam Schiff

In 2015, the Hillary Clinton campaign exhibited the hubris for which politicians have been associated since the dawn of civilization. 

Instead of relying on a strategy of promoting Hillary herself, Clinton insiders plied what they called “Pied Piper candidates,” Republican hopefuls who, they theorized, would shift mainstream candidates further “right,” thus making the ultimate winners unpalatable to enough general election voters to win Hillary the election. There were three they identified: Ted Cruz, Ben Carson, and Donald Trump. 

We know how this worked out.

In California, Democrats are returning to hubristic form.

The serpentine Adam Schiff, who is running to fill the slot formerly occupied by Senator Diane Feinstein, has directed $11 million in the primary “to elevate a GOP candidate,” according to The Washington Post. 

“The ads argue that Republican Steve Garvey — a congenial former pro baseball player for the Los Angeles Dodgers and San Diego Padres who voted twice for Donald Trump but won’t say if he will do so again — is too conservative for California and highlight his recent surge, in an apparent effort to consolidate support for him on the right.”

The idea is to boost Garvey with Republican primary voters in hopes that Garvey takes the second of two spots available for the November election under California’s Top Two system, becauseSchiff’s people think Garveyis easier to defeat than liberal Democrat “Rep. Katie Porter, whom Schiff and his backers would prefer to avoid facing come November in this left-​leaning state.”

But can this strategy really work in California? The ads portray Garvey as more Trumpian than he probably is, and recent polling suggests that Schiff and Garvey are now neck-and-neck.

A review of the Clinton metaphor, “Pied Piper,” shows how slippery the strategy can be. The “Pied Piper of Hamelin” is a cautionary tale. 

The Democrats’support may go the way of rats and children.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with PicFinder and Firefly

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
ballot access election law partisanship political challengers

Parties Demoted

voting, elections, primary, democracy, rules

Though “[s]everal left-​leaning groups have sued to block the former president from the state’s ballot on 14th Amendment grounds,” Tom Ozimek of The Epoch Times reported in November, “Trump Listed on Michigan Primary Ballot,” as the headline states.

The primary was yesterday. Trump won. As expected.

But he appeared on the primary ballot only with legal wrangling. Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson, a Democrat, was under a lot of pressure to keep Trump off the ballot. Which she resisted, explicitly stating that she thought the maneuver to allow state officials to prohibit Trump from appearing on ballots because of the 14th Amendment’s “insurrection” clause was a bad idea.

Michigan’s voting system is now quite complicated. First, it’s an open primary state, so there will always be strategic voting, where partisans will cross lines to sabotage opponent parties. Though in the case of Trump, there is some irony here, since Trump benefitted in 2016 from such voting by Democrats, thinking he was the candidate easiest to beat in the general election.

Michigan sports a hybrid system for selecting partisan candidates to appear on the general election ballot. “More of Michigan’s 55 delegates to the Republican National Convention (RNC) will be awarded,” explains Nathan Worcester, also of The Epoch Times, “through the caucus process than through the primary vote — 39 as opposed to just 16.” But there are dueling conventions for caucusing, and it’s quite a mess.*

Michigan also now offers early voting at special voting sites. Is it a sign of a healthy democracy that there are so many ways to vote?

It sure doesn’t seem healthy that national partisan politics almost kept a Republican candidate off a primary ballot. Could the solution be to take parties’ candidate selection entirely out of state balloting?

Demote major parties from their current favored position to paying their own way.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

* In the Democratic Primary, President Biden won big against Dean Phillips, a largely unknown congressman from Minnesota, and author Marianne Williamson. But, with roughly half the vote counted, a not insignificant 14 percent of Democrats snubbed the president (and the field) by voting “Uncommitted.” Many were no doubt protesting the president’s policies concerning the Israel-​Hamas War; in the county containing the University of Michigan, 20 percent voted uncommitted. Yet, even in rural counties across Michigan, more than 10 percent of Democrats opted for uncommitted.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with PicFinder and Firefly

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts