Tag Archives: political parties

Buying An Election

Posted on by
Reply

…by buying access to and advertising on private, personal social media accounts.

Michael Bloomberg’s presidential campaign is hiring hundreds of workers in California to post regularly on their personal social-media accounts in support of the candidate and send text messages to their friends about him.

It’s the Bloomberg way. And it’s what we can expect from a Bloomberg administration: circumventing laws, unethically and amorally, if not strictly violating them, at convenience, along with going around the parameters laid out by private enterprises, again unethically and amorally if not openly violating them, for personal political gain.

It’s also illustrative that Bloomberg doesn’t even believe his own words, his own message, his own policies; he feels constrained to pay strangers to tout them, rather than persuading them with the legitimacy of his offerings to do so.  After all,

Most campaigns encourage their supporters to post on social media about their candidates, but paying them at this scale to express support on their personal accounts is unusual, experts say.

Party Influence

Posted on by
Reply

There is growing concern among some, particularly among the elites and party elders, that our political parties are losing too much power and authority over candidate selection.

[The ascents of Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential candidate and Senator Bernie Sanders (I, VT) and President Donald Trump (R)] are the latest sign that the nation’s political parties have lost influence in choosing their own presidential nominees….

Tom Rath, ex-Republican National Committee delegate, worried about this:

We’re organized around individual candidates and individual concerns. No one wants to be bothered with the party.

Joe Trippi, ex-Progressive-Democrat strategist and current CNN pundit, also expressed angst:

The parties are powerless right now and have been for a while. With both parties it’s personality- and candidate-driven, not party-driven.

And this:

Several current and former members of the Democratic National Committee said a party that once elevated Governors Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton to the White House should have found a way to place governors, who have proven electoral records, on the debate stage more often.

Because Party Know Betters should determine voter choices, not the voters. (I’ll elide questions about why a party that once elevated Senators to the White House switched to governors. I’ll also leave aside the Know Betters’ wisdom in choosing Carter.)

And this, from Elaine Kamarck, herself a long-time Democratic National Committee Know Better (as paraphrased by the WSJ):

DNC Chairman Tom Perez should have acted “by decree” to give more visibility to elected leaders such as Mr Bullock or former Governor John Hickenlooper of Colorado…. At the same time…Mr Perez had little choice but to adopt neutral qualifying criteria, because “party leaders are no longer expected to have a role in choosing the nominee.”

Wow. Just—wow. The party that claims to be all about democracy and “what people want” should act from diktat.

We can debate the wisdom of personality-driven. However, it’s clear that in order to be personality-driven, or candidate-driven, the process also has to be voter-driven. The nominees, after all, are ours, not the parties’.

And that’s all to the good. Our Constitution, after all, opens with We the People, not Our Parties.

The noise of freedom is growing louder and democracy is growing stronger for it—especially republican democracy.

Somewhat of an aside:

Self-described democratic socialist Senator Bernie Sanders and President Trump rose in politics by developing strong personal brands, while keeping only tenuous ties to—and frequently criticizing the leaders of—the parties they later sought to lead.

I’m not sure of the inconsistency here. What would we expect them to do—say, “These guys are doing a terrific job. Put me in charge instead.”

Progressive-Democrats and Litmus Tests

Posted on by
Reply

The Progressive-Democratic Party and its Presidential candidates continue to be…upset…over judicial confirmations that are going on with the Trump administration and the McConnell Senate. And they have issue-based litmus tests for what they consider acceptable (progressively so) judges and Justices. The test is in addition to their wish to change the structure of the Supreme Court to favor their ideology.

Their tests are these: the nominees must overtly favor abortion, be activists regarding the environment, and positively consider labor union matters.

Never mind that judges cannot legitimately consider these things except from within the confines of the text of our Constitution and the statute before them in any particular case. Otherwise, those matters are political items that must be determined by the political branches of our government and by Government’s employer and boss, We the People.

More: the candidates refuse to provide the lists from which they’d nominate their favored judges and Justices. They seem to lack the integrity and moral courage to do so.

In contrast, then-Presidential candidate Donald Trump published his list of judges and lawyers from which he’d draw his Justice nominees, and President Trump has drawn his Justice—and appellate court—nominees from that list.

Just to saucer and blow the matter, here’s my litmus test for judge and Justice nominees; it’s both simple and general:

  • Will you rule strictly on the basis of the text of our Constitution and of the statute before you, or will you rule on your current interpretation of what it should say?
  • Do you believe our Constitution lives through judicial rulings or that it lives through Article V and We the People?

It’s clear that Progressive-Democrats’ nominees—named or secret—would fail that litmus test.

Too Early to Say

Posted on by
Reply

…but I’m gonna say, anyway.

Much is being made of Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential candidate and Senator Bernie Sanders’ (I, VT) so-called victory in the just concluded New Hampshire primary and the momentum he’s supposedly gained with that, coming as it does on the heels of his “near victory” in what the Iowa Democratic Party has been pleased to call a caucus earlier in the month.

[T]he campaign of Senator Bernie Sanders (I, VT) goes from strength to strength, drawing massive crowds and recording top-two finishes in the early-state contests.

I don’t agree. Sanders has gone from maybe-strength to should-have-had-strength, from a narrow “loss” in the Iowa fiasco (quotes of substitution because the Iowa thing almost doesn’t count) to very badly underperforming in New Hampshire, where he should have won by an order of magnitude larger margin than his narrow, nominal plurality victory.

Sanders is far from a loser, but if Buttigieg and Klobuchar can maintain, and especially if Warren, Biden, and/or Steyer can hang in, and/or if Michael Bloomberg’s buying strategy shows strength, the Progressive-Democrats may well go to a brokered convention.

There’s more.

If Sanders doesn’t come out of that convention with a first-ballot nomination, the hue and cry will be louder than it was in 2016, and many of his supporters may well sit out the general election again. If he doesn’t get the nomination after the first ballot, when Party elites get to vote—the brokering part having begun—the cries of foul will be deafening, likely justified, and Sanders’ supporters can be expected to sit out the general election en masse.

The uproar will be especially loud and Party internecine warfare will ensue in the unlikely, but far from not gonna happen, event Michael Bloomberg gets the brokered nomination. His economic views are virtually diametrically opposed to Sanders’, and Bloomberg will be unable to escape the charge—accurate or not—that he simply bought the brokerage.

It won’t only be Sanders’ supporters who sit out. Or defect.

And the move, from that civil war, to split away from Party and to form a third party will gain strength.

Leave alone, Jobs, Respect

Posted on by
Reply

Ex-Chicago Mayor and ex-President Barack Obama Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel (D) cried out in a Wall Street Journal op-ed earlier this month that Progressive-Democrats are “blowing their chance,” the central theme of which was that the current crop of Progressive-Democrat Presidential candidates seemed to be running against ex-Progressive-Democrat Presidents Bill Clinton and Obama, rather than the current President, Donald Trump.

A Letter to the Editor writer in Friday’s WSJ took issue with Emanuel’s piece; this part in particular drew my attention.

Donald Trump is on the edge of doing more for black Americans than Mr Emanuel’s party has done for decades. He’s leaving them alone, giving them jobs, showing them respect.

I agree with the letter writer (RTWT), but I do have one small correction here. Giving minorities things is what Progressive-Democrats—like Emanuel—do, in order to keep those minorities trapped in the Progressive-Democrats’ welfare cage. Trump is creating opportunity and helping black Americans—all minorities—get second chances after sometimes serious mistakes, find their own jobs, be able to make their own way.

And you bet Trump is otherwise leaving them alone. This is wholly unlike the Left, even more generally than its Party, which hektors, when not outright smearing, blacks for not adhering to Party, not voting correctly, and thereby being good blacks.

Opportunity, actual help rather than giving things, no soft bigotry of low expectations—that’s true respect.

There was this, also, from Emanuel in his missive:

The next nine months will present our raucous coalition a rare opportunity to establish a new Democratic “metropolitan majority” that could last for years.

This is very illuminating. It makes explicit the Progressive-Democrats’ utter contempt for tens of millions of Americans—those of us citizens who live in flyover country.