Category: political challengers

Categories
Accountability ideological culture local leaders national politics & policies political challengers responsibility

Crazy Like a … Spoiler

spoiler, GOP, incumbents, Republicans, Pro-Trump

Seven Republican members of Congress — three in the last two weeks — have announced their retirement.* The Democrats, needing 24 additional seats to gain a majority, see an opening.

Steve Kornacki, MSNBC’s national political correspondent, calls these seven “pure retirements.” That is, these politicians aren’t seeking another office, they suffer from no scandal, and are “pretty good at getting re-​elected”; they’re “just deciding to leave.” Kornacki notes that the GOP had eight pure retirements in 2006 when they lost the House, and the Democrats had eleven when their majority was destroyed in 2010. 

On his MSNBC program, The 11th Hour, an exasperated Brian Williams complained, “On top of all that, since down is up and up is down, Bannon [is] threatening to — to use the verb of the moment — primary incumbent Republicans! Which is crazy.”

Williams refers to Steve Bannon, late of the Trump administration and now back at the helm of Breitbart News. Bannon is now working, as CNN reported, with “conservative mega-​donor Robert Mercer, who is prepared to pour millions of dollars into attacks on GOP incumbents.” Incumbent Republicans thwarting Trump, that is.

“I don’t think anyone should be surprised,” remarked Ned Ryun, American Majority’s CEO. “It’s a natural reaction by the base to what they’ve perceived as a perhaps intentional inability to pass any Trump agenda items.”** 

Ah, more spoilers! This week we’ve talked about Libertarian spoilers; now, pro-​Trump spoilers. And, for years, non-​profit groups such as the Club for Growth and U.S. Term Limits have helped a challenger against an incumbent, and been dubbed dangerous to Republican hegemony for their trouble. 

Seems what connects all these anti-​establishment folks is a commitment to principle over power. 

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

 

*  The retiring Republicans are Rep. Sam Johnson (R, TX‑3), Rep. Lynn Jenkins (R, KS‑2), Rep. Ileana Ros-​Lehtinen (R, FL-​27), Rep. John Duncan Jr. (R, TN‑2), Rep. Dave Reichert (R, WA‑9), Rep. Charlie Dent (R, PA-​15), and Rep. Dave Trott (R, MI-11).

** Steve Kornacki responded to Brian Williams: “Absolutely unheard of for a nominee in either party to have that complete lack of support from Capitol Hill and then go out there and win the nomination [for president].… You have this element where all these members of Congress, even though it’s a president of their party on paper, don’t really feel they’re part of this presidency.”

PDF for printing

 

Categories
Accountability ballot access folly media and media people moral hazard national politics & policies political challengers term limits

If This Be Blackmail…

Hillary Clinton, What Happened, Libertarian, 2-party, ranked choice voting

The Republican Party now boasts of more positions of power than … ever? And yet the GOP is in danger of falling apart.

The Democrats, now forced to endure Hillary Clinton’s new absurdity, What Happened, appear at wits’ end. They just do not “get it.”

Alas, “not getting it” is not limited to the major parties. The Libertarian Party (which is my subject this week) has been around since 1972 … doing the same things over and over … with spectacular lack of electoral success.*

Sure, the party has had no small subtle influence — perhaps most notably the change in marijuana policies. Yet it could have even more. Without electing anybody, as I argued yesterday.

But that’s just the tip of the Titanic-killer. 

Not only could party organizers threaten the major parties with running — and taking away votes — based on their candidates’ positions, Libertarian organizers could also threaten to run against candidates who will not publicly take up the cause of electoral reform.

Particularly, ranked choice voting.

Because of our first-​past-​the-​post elections, Libertarians tend to take away votes from those most similar to themselves. With ranked choice voting (see a sample ballot), a voter whose favorite is a Libertarian will have his second-​favorite choice count** towards that candidate; minor party candidates would no longer work as spoilers. 

And that would allow voters to embrace their real preferences, not pretend to like candidates they actually distrust.

Since major party candidates would, in most circumstances, be hurt less by those closest to them, they should be willing to be “blackmailed” on this.

Jumping into the briar patch of supporting fresh reform to stop the spoilers.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

 

*  The 3 million odd votes for the Johnson/​Weld presidential ticket, though a leap ahead from previous outings, was seen by many as a disappointment: that’s all the dynamic duo of former governors could do in a year with the unpopular duo of Trump and Clinton as R and D standard-bearers? 

** That is, in cases where only a small percentage of the vote favors the Libertarian most.

PDF for printing

 

Categories
general freedom incumbents local leaders national politics & policies political challengers

The Reverse of the “Spoiler Effect”

leverage, politics, Virginia, Libertarian, influence

“Voter surveys have found the GOP-​controlled Congress,” I wrote last weekend at Townhall, “to be more popular among self-​described Democrats than self-​described Republicans.”

Why? Because Republican politicians are proving themselves unable — even unwilling — to legislate as they have promised. One word: Obamacare. And few dare actually cut spending on anything … though they campaign on something (mythical?) called “fiscal responsibility.”

This leaves the GOP open to challenge. By the party I mentioned yesterday on this page.

And that can prove disastrous for the Republicans, for our elections in these United States are not run, on the whole, on reasonable grounds. They are “first past the post” elections, where, if enough people vote for their most favorite candidate it ensures that their least favorite candidate wins.

In those races where allegedly “small government”/“fiscally responsible” Republicans are challenged by serious budget-​slashing Libertarians, the Libertarian candidacy can have the effect of electing a Big Government/​Pro-​Debt Democrat.*

Yet the actual political outcome of these challenges could be positive — yes, for the GOP. As I wrote yesterday, the Virginia Libertarian gubernatorial candidate seems to be influencing the Republican to be less of a “jail ’em all” Drug Warrior. 

When Republicans adopt pro-​freedom positions they’ll win more votes.

Moreover, this influence need not be ad hoc.

State Libertarian Party officials could identify the most critical issues and negotiate directly with state GOP officials: “These are our issues — if your incumbents vote correctly on these issues, we will not challenge them. But if not, we will take them out.

“And if we help elect Democrats, that’s on your head.”

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

 

* There may be cases where the Libertarians — when focusing on issues such as drug legalization and peace — have cost Democrats elections. If so, Libertarians ought similarly leverage Democrats in those areas to improve their positions on those issues.

PDF for printing

 

Categories
general freedom local leaders national politics & policies political challengers

Virginia Déjà Vu?

Republican Ed Gillespie, Democrat Ralph Northam, Libertarian Cliff Hyra, Virginia, Governor, race, election, vote,

Virginia’s odd-​year elections this November 7th offer the nation’s premier race for governor, pitting Republican Ed Gillespie against Democrat Ralph Northam …

… oh, and also Libertarian Cliff Hyra.

Could it be a repeat of four years ago? 

In 2013, notable Friend-​of-​Bill and Democratic Party nominee for governor Terry McAuliffe defeated Ken Cuccinelli, the state attorney general and Republican nominee, by a mere 2.6 percent. McAuliffe garnered 48 percent of the vote to Cuccinelli’s 45 percent … 

… to Libertarian Robert Sarvis’s impressive 7 percent. In fact, the Sarvis vote more than doubled the margin between McAuliffe and Cuccinelli.

Last month, a Virginia Commonwealth University (VCU) poll showed a close gubernatorial race with Northam at 42 percent leading Gillespie at 37 percent … 

… oh, and Hyra at 6 percent among likely voters. Once again, the Libertarian’s support proved greater than the margin between Democrat and Republican.

Back in 2014, Mr. Gillespie challenged incumbent U.S. Senator Mark Warner, nearly pulling a stunning upset, falling just 0.8 percent short. Libertarian Robert Sarvis was also in that race, receiving 2.4 percent.

Lt. Governor Northam, a former U.S. Army doctor, was twice elected to the state Senate.

Former Republican National Committee a Chairman Gillespie, a counselor to President George W. Bush and a lobbyist and political consultant, won the GOP primary by only one percentage point.

Hyra, a patent attorney with no experience in public office, is pushing a tax cut that dwarfs what Republican Gillespie advocates. The Libertarian is also campaigning on criminal justice reform and legalizing recreational use of marijuana.

Surprisingly, or maybe not, Gillespie seems mobile on the pot issue. He has announced his support for legalizing medical marijuana and wants to criminalize recreational use only after two offenses. 

A Libertarian influence?

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

 

Categories
ideological culture local leaders media and media people national politics & policies political challengers

Strange Money

House Minority Leader, Nancy Pelosi, Mitch McConnell, U.S. Senator, Luther Strange, Washington, establishment

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell sure is popular … in Washington. 

Elsewhere? Well …

In Alabama, a Republican runoff on the 26th pits controversial Judge Roy Moore, who gained national attention fighting to keep a Ten Commandments monument on court grounds, against U.S. Senator Luther Strange, appointed to the office by Governor Robert Bentley.*

The third place finisher was U.S. Rep. Mo Brooks, who, while complimenting Judge Moore for running “a very honest campaign,” has declined to endorse either candidate. As for Strange, Brooks offered: “I want to congratulate the people who were behind him: Mitch McConnell, the Washington establishment, the K street lobbyists. They put together some very tough ads …”

McConnell has poured nearly $7 million from the Senate Leadership Fund into Strange’s campaign, giving the incumbent what the Birmingham News called “a staggering financial edge over Moore.” 

And yet the paper’s report also noted that this “money advantage has not translated so far into votes.” A recent poll shows Judge Moore with a double-​digit lead over Sen. Strange — 52 to 36 percent.

President Trump has also endorsed Strange, which with Trump’s popularity there is likely to help. Meanwhile, House Freedom Caucus Chairman Mark Meadows endorsed Moore, warning that McConnell, a fellow Republican, would flood the state with “millions of dollars in false advertising.”

GOP advertising in Georgia’s June special election bypassed the Democrat running to instead make Democrat House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi the face of opposition Democrats. It seemed to work.

Similarly, Roy Moore’s campaign may very well ignore Strange to make Sen. Mitch McConnell the face of the opposition Washington establishment.

Possible slogan: “The Washington establishment’s choice is Strange.”

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

 

* The governor was, at the time of the appointment, under investigation by Strange, then Alabama’s Attorney General.

PDF for printing

 

Categories
Accountability crime and punishment folly general freedom ideological culture local leaders media and media people moral hazard national politics & policies political challengers property rights Regulating Protest responsibility

Alt-​Comparisons

Antifa, violence, Berkeley, free speech, fascists, alt-right, alt-left

“There is no comparison,” concluded Washington Post columnist Margaret Sullivan, after spending her entire column doing just that, i.e. comparing Antifa, the so-​called “alt-​left,” with Nazis and white supremacists, the so-​called “alt-​right.” 

When Trump spoke about Charlottesville violence on both sides, Sullivan argued, “He was comparing things that aren’t the least bit equal, neither in scale nor in intent.”

Sullivan trumpeted statistics compiled by the Anti-​Defamation League. The U.S. had 372 politically motivated murders between 2007 and 2016, with 74 percent committed by right-​wing extremists and only 2 percent by left-​wing extremists.* 

Yet, those perpetrating 2 percent of such slayings can legitimately be compared to those perpetrating 74 percent — and also likened to thugs who beat down opponents in the street (thankfully without murdering them). 

All of the above use violence to achieve political goals.** Some are more deadly than others, but the violent actions of all should be condemned. 

Sullivan acknowledged that “it’s safe to say that most news consumers, if they know anything about antifa, know what the president has told them, and what they’ve gleaned from the club-​wielding protesters shown endlessly on TV …”

Are citizens not supposed to take note of the violence in living color right before their eyes?

And why are folks uninformed? Could the mainstream media’s failure adequately to cover, say, previous Antifa rioting at Berkeley and elsewhere have something to do with it?

Lastly, Sullivan called on the media “to resist conflating [Antifa] with liberal groups.” Agreed. And let’s have the same fairness in not conflating Nazis and the KKK with conservatives. 

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob. 

 

*  By the process of elimination, “moderate extremists” are apparently committing close to a quarter of all political killings. 

** I’ve not drilled down into these stats, or figured out what, precisely, qualifies as “political.”

PDF for printing