Barriers for a Third-Party Run in 2016

There's a lot of talk this year about third party runs for the presidency.  Will Trump run as a third party candidate if he doesn't get the nomination?  Will Sanders?  How about Bloomberg if Trump gets the nomination? (OK, not Bloomberg)

There's a lot of angst.

To dispel that angst, let's talk about what a "third party run" means.  Technically America has a multi-party election, but realistically, universal ballot access is limited to the designated nominees of the Democratic and Republican Parties.  The barriers against other parties, independent candidates, and write-in candidates are significant.

Let's look at those three options:

Parties other than the Republican and Democratic Parties

There are minor parties in the US electoral system.  The most significant are probably the Libertarian Party and the Green Party.  Aside from Ross Perot's 1996 run at the head of his Reform Party, the only other minor party to field a presidential candidate since Strom Thurmond (States' Rights Democratic aka Dixiecrat) and Henry Wallace (Progressive) in 1948 has been the American Independent party.  No minor party candidate since 1968 has won a single electoral vote (EV) and the best percentage a minor party has garnered since 1968 is Ross Perot at 8.6% in 1996.

This year, the Libertarian Party claims they will be on the ballot for 342 (about 63%) of EVs.  Technically enough to win, but they would need to win just under 80% of the EVs they are on the ballot for.

The Green Party says they have ballot access in about 20 states totaling 304 (about 56%) of EVs, which means they would need to win just under 89% of those EVs to elect a president.  They do say that about another 179 EVs are "potentially in play", which at this date I interpret as "we pray we might get on the ballot".

For those of you watching the far-right, the Constitution Party hasn't managed to get on the ballot in over 41 states and in 2012 was on the ballot in only 26.  They have never won a single EV and their high-water mark in votes was less than two-tenths of one percent (about 183,000 votes in 1996).

Since 1900, the best a third party has done is Teddy Roosevelt's Progressive Party in 1912, which gathered over 27% of the popular vote nationwide and 88 (16.5% of the then 531) EVs for a second place finish ahead of the rump Republican incumbent William Howard Taft (8 EVs) and far behind Democratic Party nominee Woodrow Wilson (435 EVs and 42% of the popular vote).  This was the last election in which a non-Republican Party, non-Democratic Party candidate came second in EVs or the popular vote.  Wilson won 40 of 48 states, Roosevelt 6, and Taft 2 (VT and UT, if you're counting).  The popular vote was much closer, with Wilson gathering about 6.3 million, Roosevelt about 4.1 million, and Taft about 3.5 million.

Write-in Candidates

Technically, Write-in candidates have access to 43 states and 494 (just under 92%) EVs.  Thirty-five of those states require some sort of paperwork.

However, I can find no evidence that a Write-in candidate has ever made a respectable showing in a national presidential election.  There are some notable primary wins, especially Henry Cabot Lodge in 1964 who won Republican Party primaries in New Hampshire, New Jersey, and Massachusetts.

And then there's the success that fails: in 1968 incumbent Lyndon Johnson did not file for the New Hampshire Democratic Party primary, gaining 50% of votes cast as a Write-in.  However, Eugene McCarthy was on the ballot and received 41% of the vote.  Johnson withdrew from the 1968 election, leaving McCarthy to lose massively to Republican Party candidate Richard Nixon.

Independent Candidates

Since 1912 the most popular "third party" candidate has actually been independent, running outside of the party system.  In 1992 independent candidate Ross Perot gathered 18.9% of the popular vote while winning 0 EVs.  In 1980 independent candidate John Anderson got 6.6% of the popular vote while winning 0 EVs.

To get on the ballot for November as an Independent, you have to deliver signatures to every state (except for Louisiana and Colorado, where you can just pay them).  A grand total of about 875,000 signatures in 48 states plus DC, with 49 different requirements and 25 different deadlines.

The Bottom Line: non-major Candidates are spoilers

While minor party, write-in, and independent candidates have garnered significant popular vote numbers in the last century, none have been viable national candidates as measured by the only metric that matters: EVs.  Even Teddy Roosevelt didn't come close, and he was closer to a true Republican Party candidate than a true minor party candidate.

Any "third party" candidacy must be seen nearly exclusively in the role of spoiler.  Yes, this is a weird year, with Trumpers and Berners showing great enthusiasm among polities that mostly seem unwilling to vote.  "Likely voter" models are out the window, or at least deeply in question.  Something wild could happen.  But the last 100+ years (only 25 or so presidential elections, really, so the sample size is small) says it won't.  The most recent President of the US who wasn't either a Republican or a Democrat was ... Millard Filmore (1850-1853), our 13th President who was a Whig.

The Republican Party and Democratic Party have dominated four of the six "party systems" covering US presidential election history, starting in 1854.  There is no particular reason to think this is going to change.  The Republican Party is likely to have to re-invent itself, as both of the two major parties have done periodically since the 1850s, when the Republican Party was the northern anti-slavery big government party and the Democratic Party was the party of Redeemers and Copperheads as well as the lower economic class rural workers now seen as the voting backbone of the modern Republican Party.

Could someone run?

It's quite clear that the idea of a third party run is in the air.  But the mechanics of such a run (other than a futile Write-in campaign) are difficult, and probably out of reach at this point, especially for a pseudo-Republican Party candidate like Trump.

The best route would probably be taking over one of the existing minor parties, like the Libertarians or the Greens.  The downside of that is that you are immediately giving up huge swaths of the country and would have to win 80+% of the EVs where you are on the ballot.

Failing that, or desiring access to all the EVs, an Independent run is the only option.  And there's a giant steaming pile of Texas* in your way.  If you want to be on the November ballot as a independent in Texas, you have to deliver nearly 80K valid signatures.  According to Politico, all of those signatures must come from voters who did not vote in the March 1st primary (taking more than 4 million likely voters out of the signature pool).  By the 9th of May (39 days).  About 2K valid signatures per day.

According to BallotPedia, the average cost per required signature is just over $4, so that's about $320K just in Texas.  An average of $3.5 million nationwide.  Some campaigns cost three times that, or about $10 million nationwide.

* The last Democratic Party candidate to win Texas was Jimmy Carter in 1976.  The last Republican Party candidate to win the Presidency while losing Texas was Richard Nixon in 1968.  It's hard to see a Republican Party (or pseudo-Republican Party) candidate winning the Presidency without Texas.

So if there are not Trumpers out gathering signatures to put Trump on the ballot in Texas, Trump is not running as an Independent.

Oh, and there's one other problem.  Texas is one of two states with "sore loser" laws that apply to presidential elections.  No one who has run in a presidential primary in Texas may be on the ballot as an Independent.

There is possibly some wiggle room.  A court challenge might defeat the May 9th deadline (every non-presidential candidate in Texas has until June) and 42 out of 45 states with sore loser laws have established precedents that they do not apply to presidential primaries, so Texas may just be next on that list (the other state, BTW, is South Dakota, whose 3 EVs may or may not be worth the trouble).  John Anderson ran as an Independent in 1980 despite participating in seven early caucuses and primaries, but had withdrawn well before the Texas primary.

Will someone run?

Here's how you know whether it's going to happen.

It's not.

At least not unless there is some very interesting activity going on at a relatively frantic pace.  Now, or if not now, soon.

Look for news reports of signature gathering in Texas (deadline 5/9), North Carolina (deadline 6/9), and Illinois (deadline 6/27).  If you don't see it, court challenges or taking over a third party are the only options, and I don't believe that taking over a third party is anything but a spoiler move.

Berners and Trumpers may stay home, or not.  Clintonistas and Cruzers may hold their noses, or not.  But the odds of a successful third party or independent run are tiny and the barriers are huge.

I think it comes down to one question:

If he doesn't get the nomination, is Trump crazy enough to spend millions just to defeat Ted Cruz?

Anybody who waits until after the conventions is giving up any chance to get access to more EVs than the Libertarian and Green Parties are already signed up for, so the secondary question is:

If he doesn't get the nomination, could Trump subvert either the Libertarian or Green Party and become their nominee?

I have no idea.

(updated: spelling corrections)

There's more...

I Honestly Don't Get It...

Sex scandals are ridiculous and distracting and I don't really care what consenting adults do. Seriously. Mostly it is just a device used by the media to keep you watching and keep their ad revenue stream flowing.

What I really wonder is why  while people like Vitter and Sanford, and Craig, etc etc etc. cling to office, Dems are all Off-With-Their-Heads about  people like Weiner. 

If it effects your job like say- when you disappear from office for 5 days and no one knows where you are (SANFORD) then you should go. If it hurts Kids or Women- (FOLEY) Then you should go. If you campaign on the sanctity of marriage, or an anti gay agenda and your sex scandal shows you to be an outrageous hypocrite (Craig) then you need to go!

If you DO get "caught" You shouldn't lie about it. But even that is not a deal breaker for me since most people lie when faced with the kind of media feeding frenzy that people face in this situations

But if you are not one of the above abusers and hypocrites
then

 I DON'T CARE. I never did. Sex is not the most important thing that we need to be worrying about when it comes to governance. not even close.

It is long past time that the American public care less about this kind of crap and high time that we focus on the real ills of social injustice, the killing of the planet, war, hunger, violence, racism. Don't those problems seem more important? Even typing them makes me feel like Weiner's tweet is a ridiculous distraction. The minority leader and other Dems should get back to work and leave Mr. Weiner's um... business to the pathetic focus of the GOP and the freakshow media.

Get to work and you get to keep your jobs, focus on this kind of thing and you are just like them except weaker.

Also to regular folks. If we stop buying maybe they will stop selling... 

There's more...

Charlotte Taft Speaks: If You're A Feminist, You'll Vote Obama

(A young supporter at a rally with Michelle Obama in Las Vegas, New Mexico on October 29, 2008. Photo by Adrienne Booth.)

Charlotte Taft is what I think of as a Feminist's Feminist. She is particularly well-known and respected in Texas because she founded the Routh Street Women's Clinic, the first feminist reproductive rights clinic in our state. Routh Street became known, under her leadership, as a place where the whole woman was treated, where abortion was approached as the complicated and life-altering decision that it is without judgment or denial. With her efficient pragmatism and creative humor, she managed to dissuade Operation Rescue and other hate groups from keeping Routh Street Clinic as its number one target. Her kind of feminism is MY kind of feminism -- never single issue, never stepping away from identity but not living entirely in its tent either, a feminism which is an ethos and a world view, not just a stand on a few issues.

(For more information about Charlotte Taft and Routh Street Clinic, I recommend the fascinating article about her in the 1995 Dallas Observor.)

When Charlotte's letter, below, was forwarded on to me, I immediately knew I wanted to post it for international distribution. It's brilliant and open-minded and compassionate in that bold way I associate with women leaders. What I hope from sharing this to expand upon Charlotte's intent to begin a discussion, long overdue in this country, about the real meaning of feminism and why we can't go forward without it at our core. We've allowed others to kick dirt on it for too long, and now, with the likes of Sarah Palin claiming to be some version of "feminist", enough is enough. Just as we are taking back liberal, I'm leading the charge to take back feminist. It means what WE say it means.

And if you are a feminist, you will be voting for Obama. With pride. -- Maggie Jochild


An Open Letter to my fellow Hillary supporters who are considering casting their precious votes for McCain/Palin.

When I first heard that there were former Hillary supporters --- women --- who were going to vote for McCain I thought it was a vicious and cruel hoax. Now I realize that it is true. I think we must be coming from very different points of view. I can’t imagine what underlying beliefs and values are most important to you that his candidacy appeals to.

I’ve read some of the web sites that express anger and resentment at Hillary’s loss, and the sexism that was to blame. I was very disappointed, too. I agree that there was sexism, but when it comes down to it she didn’t win enough primaries. It doesn’t make sense to me to blame Obama, who represents and shares so many of the beliefs that Hillary stands for. It is traditional and convenient to pit women and minorities against each other. But we have more in common than not. And I wonder who benefits when we who have had so little power are scrambling to blame each other. I am hoping that your consideration of McCain doesn’t come from something as sad as racism. Every one of us has grown up in a society in which race is an issue--some of us more than others. I’ve been fortunate to have less to ‘undo’ than some people. But I hope you will see that not voting for someone because of race is exactly the same as not voting for someone because she is a woman. As a adult you either continue that kind of thinking, or you challenge it in yourself and others. That’s up to you.

I think you already know what you want to do, and you are looking for arguments that seem to make it acceptable. Though you have every right to use your vote in whatever way you want, I feel angry that you may vote for McCain not so much because of how this will affect my life, but because of what I believe is at stake for the future of women, the country, and the planet. I’m writing this letter for myself. You can read it or delete it. I fear that nothing I have to say will make any difference to you.

I’m going to write about what’s important to me, and why I think this election is so crucial. But before that there are a few points I want to make. Some of the women writing as feminists say that the Republicans respect women enough to take them seriously. I must disagree!

1. This is the Party that killed and buried the Equal Rights Amendment -- the total text of which was “Equality of Rights Under the law Shall not be Denied or Abridged by the United States or by any State on Account of Sex.” Over the past 30+ years they have killed thousands of bills and initiatives for child care, family leave, increased funding or education, alternative energy, funding for poor women to have the choice of abortion, funding for birth control and requirements that it be covered by regular insurance plans, comprehensive sex education programs, international family planning assistance, peace through diplomacy, early childhood education, school lunch programs, after school programs, wildlife and wilderness preservation, comprehensive health care, violence against women programs, and so many other things that I care deeply about. I have never felt respected or taken seriously by the Republican party. Their choice of a female whose views are antithetical to all I hold dear does not make me feel any more respected.

2. Some of the writers are intimating that Geraldine Ferraro and Bill and Hillary Clinton are going to vote for McCain. Of course I can’t read their minds, but I think it is the height of arrogance and solipsism for anyone say that just because they are going to vote for McCain, they also just know that these other great Americans are going to violate and abandon everything they campaigned for and stood for and believed in to support a ticket that epitomizes the polar opposite. I don’t know what is attracting you to McCain. I doubt it is something I can understand. But at least just be honest and say you have changed your mind about what you value. You have every right to your beliefs, but don’t cloak them in the pretense that this is some kind of righteous feminist anger. If you actually knew what Hillary Clinton stands for and supported, the issues and principals that she has worked so hard for, it would be a cavalier betrayal to throw your vote to the farthest Right Wing ticket we have seen in this nation since Barry Goldwater (who was, by the way, pro-choice!) I happened to serve on the National Democratic Platform Committee in 1984 which was chaired by Geraldine Ferraro the same year she was nominated as VP. I didn’t have any problems recalling her candidacy -- I’ve heard women say, “We can’t let the Republicans be the first.” The Democrats demonstrated that they trusted women 24 years ago. Do you even know that both the Green Party’s candidate for President and for Vice President are women? Cynthia McKinney and Rose Clemente. If what’s important to you is to support women, wouldn’t you at least cast your votes for them who support much more of the issues that Hillary supports?

3. I can’t let you think that we will not lose Roe v, Wade if McCain is elected, no matter what you hear. Better to acknowledge that you don’t care that much about it, or you don’t need an abortion, or birth control, or sex education, than to pretend to yourself that this will not happen. Currently 7 out of 9 Justices are Republican appointees. Three who have supported Roe v. Wade are older than Senator McCain and have been holding on so that the Court is not run by fundamentalists. Far Right anti-choice Justices like Scalia (who McCain has specifically cited as the type he would appoint) claim to be ruling based on Constitutional principles. But they never mention that abortion was legal when the constitution was ratified, and didn’t become illegal until the 1830’s. Many people don’t even realize that the court has already made significant inroads into legal abortion and access. The anti-choice Justices have been very clear in their opinions that they think Roe should be overturned -- as have Senator McCain and Governor Palin. McCain even says on his web site that he supports a Constitutional Amendment prohibiting abortion! When there is a vacancy on the court the President will be given a list that has long ago been made up. McCain has shown that the support of the far Right is so important to him that he gave up any shred of moderation in his choice of VP. He will have nothing to do but to appoint the ones who have been chosen for him. He won’t have a choice, even if he wanted one, just like the women of this nation. But I realize that is not your problem.

So what do I care about?

. The divide between rich and poor in this country is nearly as great as it was during the Great Depression. McCain’s approach to economics appears to me to be identical to Bush’s--to make sure the rich get richer and hope the money trickles down. It doesn’t work. The stability of our country is totally thrown off when we really don’t have a middle class. McCain has already said that he thinks middle class is anyone who makes less than $5 million! He doesn’t even know how many houses he has--so I think you can say he is out of touch with the experience of actual people. The government has gotten us into this mess, and Obama knows that the government has to take a strong role in getting us out of it.

. Choice--already discussed above. Just a tidbit-- our nation has cut off international family planning aid during the two Bush administrations. That doesn’t just make us fools, it means that nations that used to look for us to expand education and the rights of women now need to look elsewhere. Our teenagers deserve to have education about sexuality that provides them with information and assists them in making good, safe choices for their lives. Women of all economics have the right to reproductive justice. Obama will appoint Justices who truly respect women.

. We must have an administration that sees war as a last resort, not as an interesting sport or business venture. Palin thinks God sends us to war. Isn’t it a coincidence that the people we are attacking believe the same thing.

. The planet cannot afford another administration that fights and doubts and ignores the contributions of human pollution to the degradation of the climate. Thirty years ago President Carter sat at his desk in a cardigan sweater and told us that we were in a crisis and we needed to immediately invest in alternative energy technologies and stop our dependency on foreign oil. When Reagan was elected, he didn’t just ignore that, he actually used taxpayers money to have solar panels removed from the White House property. It is not an accident or coincidence that what was already a crisis now has us close to the point at which none of our efforts can be enough. This will take a bold vision and the total commitment of the nation. If you are in doubt, just look at the weather history. The number of hurricanes and tornadoes and tsunami is increasing every year. We don’t know how to protect ourselves from these natural disasters, because there is no protection save to embark on a bold move to curtail our CO2 emissions and begin to heal the planet. The planet needs our leadership. In nominating Palin as VP, the Republicans are telling us that it’s OK with them to have a potential President who lives in denial of the basic scientific facts. We literally cannot afford it.

. During this election season, many Hillary supporters saw sexism everywhere -- and they are right -- it was there. What I have learned is that Obama supporters saw racism everywhere. They were right, too. Our society has long pitted one group against another. And who do you suppose benefits? Looks to me as though the John McCain and George Bushs of the world do. I have great hope that the Obama Presidency will be a very important step in healing our nation’s old birth defect of racism -- as I believe Hillary’s campaign was an important step in healing sexism which has also been around since the beginning. I’m happy for Sarah Palin to be treated fairly, but it is more than a little ironic to me that the Republicans are all of a sudden the ones charging others with sexism. For me, Sarah Palin is to the Women’s Movement as Clarence Thomas is to the Civil Rights Movement -- a recipient of the benefits who carries none of the heart of the vision. Yes, feminism is about women getting to do what they want, but for me that is not nearly enough. For me feminism is also about enlarging our compassion for all people; about expanding both accountability and choice; about caring for the earth as if she were our mother; about becoming evolved enough to find peaceful ways to solve our differences; it is not just about having a bigger piece of the pie, but about baking a bigger pie so that all can experience their own importance and power; it is about valuing life so powerfully that we only bring a child into the world when we know that child can be loved and cared for, and that each woman is trusted with that sacred decision; it is about truly honoring ourselves and each other. For me feminism and fundamentalism are across the Grand Canyon from each other. That’s how far I am from McCain ad Palin. For me Obama’s campaign represents a feminist approach to the country that is more about values than it is about genitals.

. As a lesbian, I care a great deal about how those outside the accepted mainstream of society as far as their sexuality are treated, both legally and with regard to policy and attitude. I am so fortunate to have grown up after the years when gays and lesbians were institutionalized by their families; were denied employment on the grounds that we were abnormal, or else were security risks because we could be blackmailed; were marginalized and openly hated. I came of age during years when so many people courageously ‘came out’ to an often ambivalent public. I was a plaintiff in a class action lawsuit in Texas designed to challenge the antiquated ‘sodomy law’ that was used to discriminate against gays and lesbians in many of the same ways that Jim Crow laws had been used to legitimatize discrimination against Blacks. My lawsuit isn’t the one that changed the world for us--that came many years later. Our society itself has begun to come out of the closet because virtually everyone now realizes that they know or are even related to someone who is gay or lesbian or transgendered. That makes it harder for the hate to be legitimate, but we still have a long way to go.

For much of our nation’s history, racism made interracial marriage illegal in may states. In 1958, polls showed that 94% of whites were against allowing interracial marriage. It was not until 1967 that the Supreme Court declared that laws banning interracial marriage were unconstitutional. Who really knows why no one thought of suggesting ‘domestic partnerships’ or ‘civil unions’ for interracial couples. I have been disappointed that all the major party Presidential candidates, including Hillary, were on the ‘play it safe’ bandwagon of supporting civil unions or some kind of contract, but not gay marriage. Yet that tells me that, Massachusetts and California notwithstanding, they all saw the marriage thing as political suicide. In terms of Obama/Biden and McCain/Palin, it is only Sarah Palin who is really opposed to even the most basic fairness in benefits, etc. You were very adamant that she allowed benefits for gay government workers. But you didn’t tell the whole story. When the Alaska Legislature passed a bill prohibiting same-sex benefits, Palin’s legal department told her she had to veto it because it would have violated a court order requiring such benefits. But note the second paragraph clearly demonstrating Palin’s disagreement with the order that benefits be provided!

"The Department of Law advised me that this bill... is unconstitutional given the recent court order... mandating same-sex benefits," Palin said in a statement. "With that in mind, signing this bill would be in direct violation of my oath of office."

The statement added, "The governor's veto does not signal any change or modification to her disagreement with the action and order by the Alaska Supreme Court. It is the governor's intention to work with the Legislature and to give the people of Alaska an opportunity to express their wishes and intentions whether these benefits should continue."

So none of the candidates supports gay marriage, but there is a significant difference in attitude between the Obama team and the McCain team. The Democrats stand for an expansion of rights and civility, where the Republicans have over and over sponsored attempts to create Constitutional Amendments prohibiting gay marriage, and it is Republicans who have supported and in some cases passed, laws prohibiting gays from adopting children. This is truly astonishing given that our current Republican VP has a lesbian daughter who has said that she considers her partner to be her spouse. The two had a baby together, and they wanted to be free to make their own choices, and to have others see theirs as a private family matter. Just as with Palin’s teen aged daughter’s pregnancy the Republicans view their families issues as private, while at the same time supporting laws that restrict others’ freedoms. They want to live their lives as they see fit. Gee, that’s all the rest of us ever wanted.

. Americans are one of the few civilized societies in which working people often cannot afford their health care. What difference does it make to be technically advanced if people go bankrupt when they have a catastrophic illness--or if they choose an abortion because they can’t afford another child when they have one with a chronic illness--or when they have to pick between getting their medication and eating? Hillary tried so hard to tackle this one all those years ago. What Party do you think stood in the way? Who protected big insurance companies and scared Americans into fearing ‘socialized medicine?’

. If you were to get a job with General Motors today, you would be making less than someone who started in the same job forty years ago. Actual earning power has declined. Foreclosures haven’t even begun to taper off, gas is off the charts, huge white collar corporations have gotten away with hiding millions of dollars for their corporate executives and squandering the pensions for working people. I waited for the Republicans to apologize to the American people for the last eight years. As far as I know they didn’t.

. In the past 30+ years there have been many programs to lessen the incidence of rape and domestic violence in this country. Yet most of our attention has been on trying to help victims and get them to safety. It is time to focus time, energy, and resources on prevention. Among all the Senators Joe Biden has been one of the most active and vocal on these very painful issues that affect thousands of families every year.

These are the things I can think of. I’m sure there are more but it is late. ---Charlotte

-----------------------------------------------
Charlotte Taft is currently co-director of IMAGINE! retreats and workshops in Glorieta, New Mexico. Further information about the issues mentioned in this letter can be found by reading the 2008 Democratic Party Platform and Finally, A Feminism 101 Blog.

For those of you with Clinton Derangement Syndrome, this post is not a chance for you to go off about Hillary. Or to engage in sexist comments about ANY woman, Sarah Palin included. Let's talk with respect and hope, as our candidate models for us.


[ Find Your Polling Place | Voting Info For Your State | Know Your Voting Rights | Report Voting Problems ]

There's more...

When You are Rich I Guess You Can Buy a Huge Microphone

photo From the The Duchess of Cornwall's visit to the British Memorial Garden at Hanover Square, New York. Sir Evelyn and Lady de Rothschild.

Prominent Dem Abroad Lady Lynn de Rothschild who served on the Dem Platform committee this cycle perpetrates a hit piece on the Democratic Party Nominee a week before the convention.

Barack Obama can use the words ‘the American dream’, but they don’t resonate,” she said. “He magnified the problem by going to Berlin and calling himself a citizen of the world.” She also resents a lack of effort to pay off Clinton’s $20m campaign debt. “He has provided her with a pittance compared to what the Clintons have given Obama,” Rothschild said. “Her debt could have been cleared within 10 days. It’s ungracious.”

Rothschild has not yet made up her mind. “I haven’t ruled out voting for McCain,” she said. “I like him a lot.” She is waiting to see who Obama picks as his running mate and has her heart set on Clinton. Sarah Baxter Times of London

Lady de Rothschild in addition to being a long time Clinton supporter and donor (The Rothschilds spent the night of their wedding dinner in the Lincoln bedroom at the White House when Bill Clinton was president) was helping on the DNC Platform committee this year. Yes, a democrat threatening in the international press to support John McCain-- helped craft our platform.

The story goes on to reference all the key talking points in Rovian-art style.

1. He's not really American
2. He's elitist (seriously a Rothschild called him elitist)
3. He's a usurper (Machiavellian meme)
4. He's unelectable

Nice.

Do I sound resentful? Damn straight. I was a Howard Dean supporter and then a Dean delegate to the convention in 2004 and was told, after we lost, that party unity was more important. I turned around and threw my heart into everything I could do to help get John Kerry elected.

In 2008 I ran for DNC and was told after winning that I should understand that now I had a responsibility to put Party first. I was told that some of my firebrand rhetoric would not be appropriate and that my job as a DNC member would be to help promote my state party. Unity being the key word in that story as well.

And yet, here is a prominent Dem Abroad, who is representing Americans Overseas on the platform, coming out with a list of GOP talking points against our candidate.

So unity is for the grassroots-- but not the leadership? Unity can be used to tell the grassroots in 2004 to behave but not party members like Lady de Rothschild now? She can say what she wants and then, in a recent email from an elected officer in Dems Abroad, she is praised for all her work on the platform.

What's the difference between her and me? cold.hard.cash. And that buys her a pass to say anything she wants about the nominee in the press and still be a leadership voice in the DNC.

*Update Lady de Rothschild follow up on foxnews.



oh, and on cnn she slams again but this time going under her pre-Rothschild maiden name so she can tout the "elite" meme more credibly.

There's more...

Support Darcy Burner

Do you live in the Washington 8th district? Know anybody who does? Help get out the vote for her this Tuesday (19th).

Darcy Burner

There's more...

Bill Gwatney, Murdered in Arkansas Democratic Party Headquarters

Photo from Arkansas Democratic Party website

LITTLE ROCK, Ark.- Police say the 49-year-old chairman of the Arkansas Democratic Party has died hours after being shot by a gunman who burst into the state party headquarters in Little Rock. Police say Chairman Bill Gwatney died four hours after the shooting near the state Capitol. Ark Demillo AP

The police shot and killed the suspect, Tim Johnson, (name not confirmed) after a 30 mile chase. As yet, no motive is known. Johnson came into Party headquarters saying he wanted to volunteer.

If this is more political hate violence then we are in for a worse year than I feared.

Before becoming State Party Chair, Bill Gwatney was a State Senator for 10 years and State Attorney General. He also worked on Mike Beebe's Campaign for Governor of Arkansas in 2006.

Update 1 from Outside the Beltway

Chairman Bill Gwatney died four hour after the shooting. The 48-year-old former state senator had been planning to travel to the Democratic National Convention later this month as a Hillary Clinton superdelegate. Clinton and her husband, former President Bill Clinton, issued a statement calling Gwatney -- not only a strong chairman of Arkansas’ Democratic Party, but he is also a cherished friend and confidante.

Unconfirmed reports claim that before the incident the shooter also brandished a weapong outside a baptist convention headquarters in the city.

Update 2- appears the Baptist incident happened just after the shooting. Not before.

There's more...

Pride in the Party; Stonewall Dems Success Story

In recent years Stonewall Democrats have created a big picture strategy of being very involved in changing the party from within including a concerted effort to send members to this year's convention as delegates. Looks like it worked!

A record number of GLBT delegates are expected to arrive at the Democratic National Convention later this month, says the National Stonewall Democrats – the nation's largest Democratic organization representing gays and lesbians.

The record numbers are a result of grassroots efforts by the organization which started in 2007. Stonewall Democrats' 2007 outreach program Pride in the Party is being hailed as a success in bringing additional GLBT voices to the convention.- On Top Magazine

This is the real long term story of the election year, more people, more involved, from a wider variety of communities across the country. The message has finally seemed to swell up from the 50 State Strategy. (thanks, Howard) We can't leave it up to the Beltway Bobs and Bettys. If we are going to restore our nation and our party we need to get involved and empower everyone to be a part of the process.

There's more...

Win a Trip to the Convention

Win a day in the campaign press pool and a trip to the 2008 political conventions by creating a video answering the question,
"Why are you a Democrat in 2008?"

For more details or to submit your video, go to
www.youtube.com/demconvention Take a look around the channel at other videos posted about Denver, the convention and about our party.

There's more...

F*cking America

The top ten recipients of Telco money-from Verizon, AT&T, and Sprint

	Contribution	House Member	District
1	$29,500	Clyburn, James	SC-6
2	$29,000	Hoyer, Steny	MD-5
3	$28,000	Emanuel, Rahm	IL-5
4	$27,500	Boucher, Frederick	VA-9
5	$26,000	Meeks, Gregory	NY-6
6	$24,500	Crowley, Joseph	NY-7
7	$24,500	Pelosi, Nancy	CA-8
8	$24,000	Bean, Melissa	IL-8
9	$22,500	Edwards, Thomas	TX-17
10	$22,100	Baca, Joe	CA-43

This is taking money to screw America. Absolutely No Question. This money was left on and removed from the nightstand.

There's more...

Now Is The Time For All Good Men To Come To The Aid Of Their Party

Fisa Call Your Wobbly FISA Senator

* Bayh (202) 224-5623
* Carper (202) 224-2441
* Obama (202) 224-2854
* Inouye (202) 224-3934
* Johnson (202) 224-5842
* Landrieu (202)224-5824
* McCaskill (202) 224-6154
* Mikulski (202) 224-4654
* Nelson (FL) (202) 224-5274
* Clinton (202) 224-4451
* Nelson (NE) (202) 224-6551
* Pryor (202) 224-2353
* Salazar (202) 224-5852
* Specter (202) 224-4254
* Feinstein (202) 224-3841
* Webb (202) 224-4024
* Warner (202) 224-2023
* Snowe (202) 224-5344
* Collins (202) 224-2523
* Sununu (202) 224-2841
* Stevens (202) 224-3004
* Byrd (202) 224-3954
* Lincoln (202)224-4843
* Reid (202) 224-3542
* Coleman (202) 224-5641
* Durbin (202) 224-2152
* Smith (202) 224-
* Stabenow (202) 224-4822
* Kohl (202) 224-5653
* Leahy (202) 224-4242
* Schumer (202) 224-6542

Once you've called, let Jane know what you were told here.

There's more...

It's His Party Now

Sen. Obama is taking the reigns, making it clear that he and his campaign, with the support of Gov. Dean and Party leaders, will be making the decisions in this race. In a series of bold moves, he has established his position clearly, honestly, and powerfully.

There's more...

Travis Childers(D) Wins Mississippi Republican House Seat

In the previously deeply republican 1st congressional district of Mississippi Travis Childers wins by 8. Bush took this district by 62% in 2004. As they say in Mississippi, daaaaayuuuuuummmmmm bitch.

There's more...

Louisana: Cazayoux = Gonna Tax You...

The NRCC ran their typical ad lineup in Louisana. Radical Liberal Agenda, Barack Obama! he's black ya know, and of course [shudder] Nancy Pelosi... They are trying to make her the next Hitlery Clinton, I guess. They even robo-called black voters and asked them teach white democrats a message. They told voters: You Decide.

And they did. In the 6th Congressional District of Louisana, a House seat that hasn't seen a Democrat in it since 1974, this happened:

49,702 49.20% "Don" Cazayoux, D
46,741 46.27% Louis "Woody" Jenkins, R

I said this at the time, Hurricane Katrina showed a lot of people exactly what happens if you follow the Republican theory through to its logical conclusion. People in Louisiana understand what government is for now and more importantly they understand that Republicans don't give 2 damns about them, or the troops, only about holding onto power and helping out their corporate buddies.

There's more...

Clinton: Delegates Can Disregard Pledges

In a interview with Newsweek recently, Senator Clinton has made clear she does not think elected delegates have to vote for who they were elected to represent. In this, her boldest statement yet, she thinks caucus delegates and elected delegates are free to vote for her even though they were specifically elected to vote for Senator Obama.

It doesn't look bleak at all. I have a very close race with Senator Obama. There are elected delegates, caucus delegates and superdelegates, all for different reasons, and they're all equal in their ability to cast their vote for whomever they choose. Even elected and caucus delegates are not required to stay with whomever they are pledged to. -- Hillary Clinton, Newsweek

This is not correct, and will rip the democratic party to pieces if they keep on in this direction. This sort of thing is not helpful and smells of sourgrapes.

There's more...

Progressive Donna Edwards CRUSHING Al Wynn

Al Wynn was the "party pick" incumbent in the Maryland 4th. Right now he is getting beaten by a girl. ;)

Edwards 59%
Wynn    37%

-- WashingtonPost.com

There's more...

Campaign 2008

Saturday, Feb. 9

    Louisiana (Dem. | GOP caucus)
    Nebraska caucus (Dem.)
    Washington caucus (Dem., GOP)

Sunday, Feb. 10

    Maine caucus (Dem.)

Any predictions?

There's more...

Dean: No Brokered Convention

The idea that we can afford to have a big fight at the convention and then win the race in the next eight weeks, I think, is not a good scenario. So, after the primaries are over, the last primary is June 8th in Puerto Rico - Puerto Rico I think, there may be another state with there - and after that if we don’t have a nominee, I think we will have a nominee sometime in the middle of March or April. But if we don’t, then we’re going to have to get the candidates together and make some kind of an arrangement. Because I don’t think we can afford to have a brokered convention, that would not be good news for either party.

Don't underestimate the power, or stubborn-ness of the Ho Ho.

There's more...

“I'm Taking My Ball & Bat and Going Home”

photo from Miscreant Mind. Click for LARGE image.

“Do It My Way or Else”

“I won't vote for _____, and neither will (insert social, racial, special interest group or friends here.)”

An Open Letter to the Idiots of the
Democratic Party Circular Firing Squad.

There's been talk lately about how if Obama doesn't get the nomination, some of you will take your ball and your bat and go home. That some of you'll actively work against Clinton in November.

Those of you who are American citizens, that is certainly your right.

Just as it's my right to tell you what total and complete idiots you are. Crybabies. Cowards.

This isn't Little League. It's the Show.

Two campaigns are fighting to be President of the United States, and for all the power which goes with. Do you really think there isn't much either of them won't do to win? Really?

I'm not here to defend Bill Clinton, nor Hillary Clinton. I'm defending the Democratic Party.

If you feel you and people you know or whose blogs you read, want to walk away from the Democratic Party because it won't nominate your preferred candidate, well, with no respect at all, you're an idiot. The Republicans will eat your lunch. (They have since 1980 except when Clinton was president. Or didn't you notice? Oh... you loved him then. Sorry. It's that selective memory you fair-weather Democrats have. Infectious.)

The Republicans right now, are self-destructing over this precise issue. Two-thirds of them hate any given candidate. It is ripping their party apart. Ain't it great?

And now some of you want us to join them? They're pissing all over themselves, and you want us to whip it out and piss on ourselves also?

For years the Republicans have been saying how you dirty fucking liberal hippies hate yourselves. They may be on to something, because some of you simply refuse to win even as it is being handed to you on a silver platter with a big pink bow. Do you hate winning?

"Oh, the American people HATE Hillary. She could NEVER win. AND I WON'T HELP. In fact, I'll work to help defeat her. And get others to help me."

Yeah? Well fuck you too. And your buddies. With friends like you...

Sara wrote about this self-destruction by the Republicans in her Three-Ring Circus article which I felt was so important in terms of grasping the strategy of this cycle, for the first time ever, we pinned a post to the top of GNB and left it there. Twenty-four full hours.

They are, maybe, just maybe, some Republicans, who will be angry enough and thus stupid enough to stay home come November, because they don't like their candidate.

Wow, do I hope so.

Boy are we stupid if we do the same. That's a circular firing squad.

By the way, why is it that some people call Senator Clinton, "Hillary" and not "Clinton?" Does it make them feel better to reduce a U.S. Senator and a woman to her first name, while calling everyone else by their last name? Obama, Obama, Obama, McCain, McCain, McCain, Edwards, Edwards, Edwards, and Hillary!

Moving on...

If you don't know all the different things the Office of the President controls, I'm not going to take the time to educate you in full. But we don't elect a President just because of Supreme Court nominations, to control the military, veto appropriations bills, or to represent us to other countries. That's the glitz, the Paris Hilton of being President. Small cheese compared to every-day impacts the Presidency has on YOUR life through the Executive Branch. And I do mean, on your life, personally, no matter your ethnic group, your sexual preference, your economic class.

Let me pick a few examples, not at random.

Ronald Reagan is responsible for the death of easily 1 million gay men in the United States, simply for his refusal to allow the CDC to act. The CDC knew what needed to be done. Reagan, the fuck, didn't mention AIDS, refused to allow warning or action. It would have hurt him politically.

This is but one of hundreds of thousands of examples.

Oil prices, and thus, gasoline prices are almost at inflation-adjusted record highs under Bush 43, thanks to both peak-oil and the Iraq war. There have been times when digging into our strategic reserve could have lowered those costs significantly. In almost every case, that is precisely when Bush 43 decided to store more oil in the U.S. strategic reserve, thus decreasing supply, increasing demand, increasing rates. The exception, of course, when it was to his political advantage to do otherwise.

One could make what I think is a valid argument, that everything this administration has done at a political level -- including wars, ecological moves, economic strategy, and so on -- has been about increasing the stock prices and profitability of the major oil companies, as well as their long term competitiveness in world markets. All this has direct impact on food prices, plastic prices, the computer industry, airplane travel, interest rates and thus your retirement plans and home loan, and of course, gasoline and your utility bill. And it falls directly into the hands of the President and the people he appoints through a number of agencies.

Continuing. Literally there are hundreds of thousands of examples from hot buttons such as abortion to approval of drugs, to federal land policy for everything from grazing rights to timber use to national park funding and creation (or not), to designation of endangered species (or not), to declaration of emergencies, to spying on your telephone calls and internet sessions. Right now, the NSA almost certainly has copies of some of your phone calls and much of your internet traffic. All this happened by order of the President and his agents.

More specifically...

I have had the skin of black children peel off in my hands from house fires in Oakland in the late 80s. These kids didn't need to die. Both the Bush 41 administration and the Reagan administration before it, refused to act on proposals I personally know were sent to the Department of Transportation which had jurisdiction over EMS, regarding coordination of EMS agencies. Failed to move on inter-agency coordination, radios, standards. Failed to move on getting smoke-detectors implemented throughout the US quickly enough. Failed to fund EMS systems for faster responses.

By the mid and late 80s, there were general solutions available which could have saved hundreds of thousands to millions of lives here in the U.S., which I personally know had made it to the Federal level. Nothing. People just kept right on dying. Only when the Clinton administration came to power, did any of these solutions even start to get implemented. Are we were we need to be? Nope. It just ain't sexy enough. And no single Senator has made it their pet project, so it's not really going anywhere. But EMS and emergency services made more progress under Clinton in 8 years, than under 12 years of Reagan/Bush. It's gone backwards under Bush 43, which is shocking, given the promises made by the Office of the President to the 9/11 Commission. But there you have it.

All these are Executive Level acts. Republican executives fail to deliver for the general good. Democratic executives take care of America.

I know what it's like to have teenagers and children literally fall apart in your hands, their skin peeling off their bodies like over-roasted chicken-skin, smelling like roast pork. These dying children don't even cry -- their lungs are roasted, coughing up soot, and the nerve endings under their skin are charred away.

In West Oakland, in my rig, that happened. On the watch of Republican presidents.

You can walk away, taking your ball and your bat if you want. I'm not walking away so long as I have a breath left in my body.

That's the difference between someone who has balls, and a coward.

Cowards take their balls and bat and go home, if they don't get their way, if the game gets hard or if they get offended. Democrats put their union with the team before everyone, even if they don't like all the players. Even if they don't like the team captain. Even if they're sick of the game or think it's hopeless.

Because the game is going to be played, no matter what. Unlike baseball, winning matters. A professional shows up to play, no matter who is on the team, fair weather or foul, because they're playing for the long-haul future of the franchise, for history, and how they feel about one player is so unimportant as to almost not matter.

Politics is a team sport. And the team which matters is the Democratic team, which currently is being taken over from the inside, by the netroots. With or without spoiled brat crybaby whining children who don't understand what it is to show up every day to play. Who threaten to take their friends, their ball and bat and go home if they don't get their way.

Cowards, quitters, idiots, crybabies, losers walk out on their team. Fair-weather friends. Who will no doubt be back when we win, begging for a piece of the action, complaining mightily how we haven't saved them a piece of power at the table.

The WGA is going to win their strike. Because they stuck together, all of them. Out of a union of about 12,000 writers, precisely one -- that's ONE writer -- went financial core during the entire strike. One. Every other writer hung together with their team. The WGA made side deals with some of the smaller producers to demonstrate their terms made sense. They kept the pickets strong. And they brought in SAG, the Screen Actors Guild, as the big threat, as in, "If you think we're crazy, walking out on you, you should see my big brother SAG. He's REALLY nuts. Come June, he's going to go all Taxi Driver on your ass, and this town will shut down for good." That's how you win strikes or elections. Everyone hangs together backed up with a credible threat.

Now some fools say they will leave and go their own way if x. It's not fine. It's stupid. It hurts the Party. And just so we're clear, the Democratic Party is going to win this fall, one way or another, with these people or without them. And afterwards, just as the WGA will never forget the scabs, I promise you, the netroots and the Party will never forget or trust any crybabies who walk out now with their balls and bats in hand, because they weren't willing to support whomever the Democratic Party democratically elects as their candidate.

I promise you if Hillary Clinton loses the nomination, she will support Barack Obama. And I promise you if Barack Obama loses, he will support Hillary Clinton. Guaranteed.

Anyone who doesn't support the nominee, should go start their own blog, I Hate Winning, where all the other whiners and complainers who have taken their balls and bats can go complain about how the world isn't devoting itself to doing what they want, how unfair life is, and how mean and nasty people are for pointing out what losers they are.

Meanwhile, the rest of us, will forget all about you ten minutes after you stop whining on GNB and other serious blogs, unless and until, you actively start working for the Republicans or for some third party. At which point you become the enemy and get attacked just like anyone else.

No one is fooling around here. All of the pros working for Clinton and Obama, the day after the nomination fight is over, 75%+ of them will be working for the other person, full out. Just like being traded to another team.

Either Clinton or Obama will win the Democratic nomination. If it's Obama, he is going to get massive support from everyone. If it's Clinton, she is going to get massive support from everyone. We are going to win the Presidency this fall. Too much is at stake to screw around.

And any Democrat who doesn't throw their full support behind the nominee, whoever he or she may be, is a fucking traitor to the Democratic Party, and can kiss my ass.

There's more...

Uhm, What Digby Said

They don't have the guts to do it when the Republicans are institutionalizing torture or lying the nation into an illegal invasion of another country, because well, Republicans are mean. -- Digby

She, as usual, is absolutely right. I see this all over the party they are the biggest bullies to people in their own party but the biggest bunch of cowards when it comes to standing up to Bush and his minions.

Don't do this, don't do that! "We don't want to give the republicans a stick to beat us with!", feh.

Although, I do think Bill should STFU.

There's more...

Kid Oakland's Diary

Great diary at Kos by Kid Oakland.

When the netroots were "born" in the aftermath of the 2002 elections, we were dealing with a Democratic Party we inherited from the 1990's. The party we inherited was shaped and built in large part by the legacy of President Bill Clinton and, in many significant ways, by Terry McAuliffe.

That's the truth.

There's more...