Fwd: Our May conversation - more thoughts
[{"sender": "Juleanna Glover", "recipients": ["jeffrey E. <jeevacation@gmail.com>"], "timestamp": "Friday, August 3 2018 03:49 AM", "subject": "Fwd: Our May conversation - more thoughts", "body": "Flagging for you. This went out to that circle of third party thinkers. Hope all is well, Jeffrey.!"}, {"sender": "Juleanna Glover", "recipients": ["Juleanna Glover"], "timestamp": "August 2, 2018 at 2:45:08 PM CDT", "subject": "Our May conversation - more thoughts", "body": "Hi all — \nI spent some time mulling additional aspects of a third choice presidential run and wanted to run five \nspecific attributes for a candidate by you as a group. \nThis much we know - the Fall elections are shaping up to be a referendum on the most divisive \nAmerican President in memory. The battle for potential Supreme Court justice Brett Kavanaugh's \nnomination this fall will only amplify the polarity of the political debate that is already deeply \noverwrought on both sides. The rising tide of pressure on Donald Trump from the Mueller investigation \nshows no sign of ebbing. \nUnless the underlying political dynamics are disrupted, the outcomes of these unprecedented events will \nstill leave us with the same unsatisfactory two front battlefield of the 2016 Presidential election. \nWatching these unrelenting, compounding events since our discussion in May, I am guessing we are all \nasking the same question: now what? For the 48 percent of Americans who believe Donald Trump \nshould not be in the White House, perhaps we too want our own \"chaos\" candidate in 2020? \nShould Trump run again, this could be a \"break glass\" moment for the majority of Americans who don't \nsupport him. Do we want to break the genteel precedents of two parties running their ceremonious and \nseemingly illogical nominating process to select a candidate? (Why do Iowa and New Hampshire play \nsuch outsized roles? What kind of small-d democratic process relies on superdelegates?) The system \nfailed in 2016, with both parties producing terribly flawed candidates in a race to the bottom. We need to \nbuild a back-up plan in the event the system fails again. \nIt's possible, of course, that we won't need a third-party candidate. Trump could decide not to run for \nwhatever reason. The Democrats could nominate a winning 2020 candidate. I am not willing to take \nthose bets. \nThe ideal candidate for a new third party is someone who is widely perceived to be that rare combination \nof both good and great. We are looking for a proven leader of men and women, someone with clear, \ndemocratic — and moral — values that reflect the best of America, not our worst. We know people like this \non the national stage now. \nAs a thought experiment, consider the possibilities of a ticket outside the partisan lanes and imagine the \nchemistry of radical combinations: Biden/Romney? Bill Gates/Hogan? Bloomberg/Haley? Howard \nSchultz/Bob Corker? Sandberg/Kasich? \nAs we have discussed narrow path to electing the first president outside the two major party primary \nsystem in 168 years is more navigable than most think. Heading into 2020, converging trends in \nAmerican's demands for a third party (a historic high of 61%), disapproval of Donald Trump holding \nsteady above 50%, and the increasingly leftward drift of the Democratic Party suggest that electorate may \nbe susceptible to merits of a new centrist party. Cynics will say that the structural impediments of ballot \nand presidential debate access, the overwhelming advantages of legacy parties' fundraising and voter \nturn-out operations preordain failure, but they're wrong; the legal and logistical hurdles are amenable to a \ncombination of lawyering and resources. The bigger, more consequential factors come in terms of \ncandidate quality and policy. I believe a candidate with five specific characteristics including a unique — \nand purposefully non-specific - policy agenda could limbo a win. \n• This is what I think a successful third-party candidate looks like; a dream third party ticket would \nstart off with enough name ID to be an instant contender. Building the name ID to run nationally is \njust too long and expensive of a process to accomplish in the 28 months until the next presidential \nelection. We can't beat a celebrity without some celebrity of our own, whether from politics, \nsports, business, or entertainment. Instantaneous name ID is so crucial because the candidate must \nstart out in striking distance in any three-way poll against Trump and a fill-in-the-blank \nDemocratic flavor-of-the day candidate. The media and political class will predetermine \nirrelevance otherwise. \n• A Democrat-leaning candidate would have to top the ideal third-party ticket. We need someone \nwith a shot at snaking a plurality of the vote in the blue states Hillary Clinton won (227 electoral \nvotes), but moderate enough to win a plurality in some combination of Trump states like Florida, \nPennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan (another 119 votes). The right candidate may even to put \nNorth Carolina, Ohio, Indiana in play for a centrist bi-partisan ticket as well (totaling an electoral \nsweep of 464 elector votes). A right leaning candidate would meet the same fate as a primary \nchallenger to Trump — for all intents and purposes we need to assume that 36% of voters won't be \ncleaved from Trump under any circumstances and run to win around them. The deep red states \nwould be off the table entirely. \n• With the Trump reality show airing daily, voters are now expecting to take their politics with a side \nof entertainment. Heretofore, ratings will matter no matter how dry the policy topic. Surely \nStephen Colbert would gladly sacrifice his executive producer Chris Licht to produce a daily \ncomedic segment of this dream candidate interviewing Americans in truck stops and McDonald's \nacross the country. A few of the \"Saturday Night Live\" script writers could certainly be enticed to \ndisguise serious debates as informative amusement. Any candidate must be committed to a near \ndaily cadence of high quality, compelling video production. It will be especially crucial to keep \nthe voters' attention during what will be a raucous Democratic primary season. Rules governing \naccess to the general election debate stage dictate that a candidate enjoy support of at least 15% of \nvoters in the months leading up to the general election. \n• This dream candidate would pledge to serve only four years and address all of the U.S.'s ticking \ntime bombs like Social Security, Medicare, health care reform, climate change, money in politics, \ngerrymandering, and infrastructure investment in a single term. This one-and-done term decouples \nour candidate from the usual politics and gives them the power of promise and deliver decisive \naction. A four-year term pledge ensures governance independent of campaign finance concerns and \nnarrow special interests inherent to winning re-election. This \"fix-it\" ticket would promise to force \ndecisions on all the underlying structural policy matters damaging America's long-term prospects \nand distorting our democracy. No more kicking the can down the road. \n• This candidate should also pledge to push for laws passed that reflect the will of simple majorities \nin Congress. Congress now only allows bills to move forward when a \"majority of a majority\" \nsupports the policy and on many levels seems fundamentally broken. This third-party president \ncould force votes based on a transparent reading of where the votes lie via coalition building. The \nSenate filibuster power will present a high hurdle, but a third-party candidate would be a de facto \ndisruptor of the two-party system. Party discipline could well break down, and moderates in both \nparties could form a powerful, decisive block willing to work with the new President. The policies \npassed into law may not be ideal for either Democrats or Republicans, but for the major agenda \nitems that must be addressed for America's long-term health, an imperfect fix that corrects course \nis better than those that now have us hurtling toward national bankruptcy. \nAnd if no candidate secures 270 electoral votes in 2020? The House of Representatives would choose the \nnext president. In 2016, reports suggested Michael Bloomberg declined to run on a third-party ticket for \nfear of splitting support from Hillary Clinton and throwing the election to a GOP-controlled House of \nRepresentatives who would then vote to select the president. The fear was the GOP controlled House \nwould have just elected Trump. \nWould Democratic control of the House mean that the House would pick an alternative to Trump as \npresident? Each state delegation has a single vote in selecting a president and it is the incoming Congress \n- the class elected in 2020 that would decide the election. But no matter which party has the speaker's \nchair, the GOP would almost certainly have the upper hand in the majority of state delegations controlled. \nWould the state delegations pick a president based on party majority control of the delegation, the \nwinner of the popular vote in each state or their own calculations as to who is best for America? \nPrecedent suggests that delegations use secret ballots, which means individual lawmakers may vote their \nconsciences. \nIf we recruit this ideal candidate; threading the needle of name ID, a center-left bent, a TV- savvy \ncampaign team and a pledge to serve only four years with an apartisan agenda, money and campaign \nexpertise would certainly follow. And 50 state ballot access is a function of time (starting in the fall of \n2019 would be prudential) and hard work as we have discussed and many of you have exhaustively war-\ngamed. \nPart and parcel of this effort would be motivating the often politically lackadaisical middle to vote. The \nraft of new technologies in data targeting and biometric mobile voting technology could transform the \nelectorate in the next few, amping voter participation and injecting the voices of moderates (both in \npolitical views and level of political interest) into the process. And any third-party effort must \nincorporate advocacy for accelerated adaption of these all but inevitable voter verification tools. I believe \nSilicon Valley could be game-changing allies in this effort. \nI am sure none of us doubt that chaos could potentially be unleashed by jamming three viable candidates \ninto a two-party system. An election that ends up in the House of Representatives is an uncontrollable, \nmurky and ancient process. But might that be a less scary prospect than relying on the Democrats to \nnominate a candidate who can beat Trump in 2020? \nI look forward to talking more about all of our ideas on this hopeful project in coming weeks. Please feel \nfree to call me to discuss. Thank you for taking time to review this note."}]